Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension

Scientists propose that clocks measure the numerical order of material change in space, where space is a fundamental entity; time itself is not a fundamental physical entity. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons.

(PhysOrg.com) -- The concept of time as a way to measure the duration of events is not only deeply intuitive, it also plays an important role in our mathematical descriptions of physical systems. For instance, we define an objects speed as its displacement per a given time. But some researchers theorize that this Newtonian idea of time as an absolute quantity that flows on its own, along with the idea that time is the fourth dimension of spacetime, are incorrect. They propose to replace these concepts of time with a view that corresponds more accurately to the physical world: time as a measure of the numerical order of change.

In two recent papers (one published and one to be published) in Physics Essays, Amrit Sorli, Davide Fiscaletti, and Dusan Klinar from the Scientific Research Centre Bistra in Ptuj, Slovenia, have described in more detail what this means.

No time dimension

They begin by explaining how we usually assume that time is an absolute physical quantity that plays the role of the independent variable (time, t, is often the x-axis on graphs that show the evolution of a physical system). But, as they note, we never really measure t. What we do measure is an objects frequency, speed, etc. In other words, what experimentally exists are the motion of an object and the tick of a clock, and we compare the objects motion to the tick of a clock to measure the objects frequency, speed, etc. By itself, t has only a mathematical value, and no primary physical existence.

This view doesnt mean that time does not exist, but that time has more to do with space than with the idea of an absolute time. So while 4D spacetime is usually considered to consist of three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, the researchers view suggests that its more correct to imagine spacetime as four dimensions of space. In other words, as they say, the universe is timeless.

Minkowski space is not 3D + T, it is 4D, the scientists write in their most recent paper. The point of view which considers time to be a physical entity in which material changes occur is here replaced with a more convenient view of time being merely the numerical order of material change. This view corresponds better to the physical world and has more explanatory power in describing immediate physical phenomena: gravity, electrostatic interaction, information transfer by EPR experiment are physical phenomena carried directly by the space in which physical phenomena occur.

As the scientists added, the roots of this idea come from Einstein himself.

Einstein said, Time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it, Sorli told PhysOrg.com. Time is exactly the order of events: this is my conclusion.

In the future, the scientists plan to investigate the possibility that quantum space has three dimensions of space, as Sorli explained.

The idea of time being the fourth dimension of space did not bring much progress in physics and is in contradiction with the formalism of special relativity, he said. We are now developing a formalism of 3D quantum space based on Planck work. It seems that the universe is 3D from the macro to the micro level to the Planck volume, which per formalism is 3D. In this 3D space there is no length contraction, there is no time dilation. What really exists is that the velocity of material change is relative in the Einstein sense.

Numerical order in space

The researchers give an example of this concept of time by imagining a photon that is moving between two points in space. The distance between these two points is composed of Planck distances, each of which is the smallest distance that the photon can move. (The fundamental unit of this motion is Planck time.) When the photon moves a Planck distance, it is moving exclusively in space and not in absolute time, the researchers explain. The photon can be thought of as moving from point 1 to point 2, and its position at point 1 is before its position at point 2 in the sense that the number 1 comes before the number 2 in the numerical order. Numerical order is not equivalent to temporal order, i.e., the number 1 does not exist before the number 2 in time, only numerically.

As the researchers explain, without using time as the fourth dimension of spacetime, the physical world can be described more accurately. As physicist Enrico Prati noted in a recent study, Hamiltonian dynamics (equations in classical mechanics) is robustly well-defined without the concept of absolute time. Other scientists have pointed out that the mathematical model of spacetime does not correspond to physical reality, and propose that a timeless state space provides a more accurate framework.

The scientists also investigated the falsifiability of the two notions of time. The concept of time as the fourth dimension of space - as a fundamental physical entity in which an experiment occurs - can be falsified by an experiment in which time does not exist, according to the scientists. An example of an experiment in which time is not present as a fundamental entity is the Coulomb experiment; mathematically, this experiment takes place only in space. On the other hand, in the concept of time as a numerical order of change taking place in space, space is the fundamental physical entity in which a given experiment occurs. Although this concept could be falsified by an experiment in which time (measured by clocks) is not the numerical order of material change, such an experiment is not yet known.

Newton theory on absolute time is not falsifiable, you cannot prove it or disprove it, you have to believe in it, Sorli said. The theory of time as the fourth dimension of space is falsifiable and in our last article we prove there are strong indications that it might be wrong. On the basis of experimental data, time is what we measure with clocks: with clocks we measure the numerical order of material change, i.e., motion in space.

How it makes sense

In addition to providing a more accurate description of the nature of physical reality, the concept of time as a numerical order of change can also resolve Zenos paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise. In this paradox, the faster Achilles gives the Tortoise a head start in the race. But although Achilles can run 10 times faster than the Tortoise, he can never surpass the Tortoise because, for every distance unit that Achilles runs, the Tortoise also runs 1/10 that distance. So whenever Achilles reaches a point where the Tortoise has been, the Tortoise has also moved slightly ahead. Although the conclusion that Achilles can never surpass the Tortoise is obviously false, there are many different proposed explanations for why the argument is flawed.

Here, the researchers explain that the paradox can be resolved by redefining velocity, so that the velocity of both runners is derived from the numerical order of their motion, rather than their displacement and direction in time. From this perspective, Achilles and the Tortoise move through space only, and Achilles can surpass Tortoise in space, though not in absolute time.

The researchers also briefly examine how this new view of time fits with how we intuitively perceive time. Many neurological studies have confirmed that we do have a sense of past, present, and future. This evidence has led to the proposal that the brain represents time with an internal clock that emits neural ticks (the pacemaker-accumulator model). However, some recent studies have challenged this traditional view, and suggest that the brain represents time in a spatially distributed way, by detecting the activation of different neural populations. Although we perceive events as occurring in the past, present, or future, these concepts may just be part of a psychological frame in which we experience material changes in space.

Finally, the researchers explain that this view of time does not look encouraging for time travelers.

In our view, time travel into the past and future are not possible, Sorli said. One can travel in space only, and time is a numerical order of his motion.

Related Stories

(PhysOrg.com) -- Several speculative theories in physics involve extra dimensions beyond our well-known four (which are broken down into three dimensions of space and one of time). Some theories have suggested 5, 10, 26, ...

(PhysOrg.com) -- In "ordinary" quantum entanglement, two particles possess properties that are inherently linked with each other, even though the particles may be spatially separated by a large distance. Now, physicists S. ...

(PhysOrg.com) -- Among the many intriguing concepts in Einsteins relativity theories is the idea of closed timelike curves (CTCs), which are paths in spacetime that return to their starting points. As ...

Though sought at much higher energies than before, researchers at Texas Tech University associated with a Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) experiment at CERNs Large Hadron Collider (LHC) continue to seek the elusive new ...

(PhysOrg.com) -- When most of us think of entanglement, our minds jump immediately to quantum communication. "Entanglement has become very well known and useful in quantum communication," Robert Prevedel tells PhysOrg.com. Preved ...

(PhysOrg.com) -- When we think of molecular collisions, we often consider massive colliders, like the LHC, sending particles smashing into each other at very high energies. While this is interesting work, ...

Recommended for you

Recent research conducted by scientists from the University of Granada sheds light on the nature of dark matter, one of the most important mysteries in physics. As indirect evidence provided by its gravitational ...

For the first time, researchers have produced a 3-D image revealing part of the inner structure of an intact, infectious virus, using a unique X-ray laser at the Department of Energy's SLAC National Accelerator ...

Researchers at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR) and Forschungszentrum Jülich (FZJ) together with a colleague at the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) in Strasbourg ...

Organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs), which are made from carbon-containing materials, have the potential to revolutionize future display technologies, making low-power displays so thin they'll wrap or fold ...

German scientists from RWTH Aachen, Research Center Jülich, TU Dresden and of the Leibniz Institute for Solid State and Materials Research Dresden report that the current flow on the surface of a topological ...

Most people, at some point in their lives, have dreamt of being able to fly like Superman or develop superhuman strength like the Hulk. But very few know that we human beings have a "superpower" of our own, ...

User comments : 505

while it is simple enough for even an arm-chair philosopher to ponder, from the late Gene Rodenberry of Star Trek fame I did learn alot about the heavens, logic, science in general.

I've known for some years that Time and Distance have no substance. Time and Distance are the same thing from different perspectives, measuring the same thing with different scales.

Finally, that you say that there can be no such thing as Time travel is a phenomenal admission of truth, I applaud it and you. To be able to time travel would require the establishing and choosing of an object with a known and absolute position. This is clearly an impossibility.

1. there are no stationary objects in Space. everything moves;2. there are no objects traveling a straight vector;

A good night's reading of Kant's Space and time [The first part of the Critique of Pure Reason, the 'Transcendental Aesthetic] is worth every word..... the structure that we use to think by is essential in the forms of space and time...

this is my favorite article so far, puts in words what I've always concluded is the most reasonable and sensible view. an interesting note - Genesis indicates the universe itself as being a time-keeper: "Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years."Literally a universe sized clock where all the parts have their movements.

In dense aether model of space-time with water surface the space dimension corresponds the direction parallel with water surface, the time dimension corresponds the direction perpendicular to water surface. It explains, why we can move in space easily, but not in time. And it illustrates too, why time always has an arrow (density gradient) assigned, whereas the space not. The removal of time from physics may solve some isolated problems, but it will bring a much more problems in another areas, so it's not advantageous from utilitarian reasons.

In AWT the structure of space-time gradient is composed of pair time antiparallel time dimensions. The objects traveling in time into past will collapse, those traveling into future will expand instead bellow 2 cm dimensional scale, above it the time arrow is reversed.

It means, for every phenomena existing in dimensional scale above the scale of observer (wavelength of CMBR ~ 2 cm) exists anti-parallel phenomena, for which the entropic time arrow is reversed. Above 2 cm scale the pressure of radiation is balanced with gravity and the seeming expansion of space-time in visible light is balanced with collapse of space-time in radio waves.

You can predict quite wide range of new phenomena with this model, for example we can expect, the radiowaves will exert a negative pressure of radiation.

In AWT the picture of Universe will change pronouncedly, when you would observe it at different wavelength.

In visible light the light of more distant sources will attenuate faster, than it corresponds ISL and it becomes reddish. In microwaves these phenomena disappear and the Universe would appear as flat, transparent and huge, as possible - no gravitational lens and CMBR shielding and Sunyaev-Zheldovitch effect disappears.

In radiowaves the gravity lens will switch their refractive index and the free space between galaxies will focus the EM radiation, instead. The background radio emission, which is the component smoothly distributed across the whole sky, will appear more brighter, than corresponds the distance of source. And the remote galaxies will appear larger, not smaller (as the classical model of space-expansion implies).

Hmm. I pondered that time didn't exist before the big bang because nothing could change. It is only with the expansion associated with the big bang could time exist, because the distance between any components mandated that time was required to move from one to the other.

I've posted this before and I'll post it again, seeing as this article says what I've been saying sortof --> time is the result between two distinct bodies of energy interacting, and on it's smallest scale in a universe that has 0 movement and is absolute 0, there is no time, no need for it. In this universe we are constantly flowing through the zero point field and it is this constant motion which is ultimately the driving factor for a dimensionless time that doesn't run fluid universally but can occur at varying speeds --> when you move faster time slows to accommodate all of that extra interaction between your bodies of energy and other bodies of energy. Even if you have empty space and a stationary photon, the space is moving all around it and thus time is necessary.

Regarding the entropic time definition we should realize, it's energy density and distance scale dependent. Above 2 cm scale all density fluctuations of vacuum tend to agglomerate into larger pieces spontaneously because of gravity - this is the domain of relativity theory. Bellow this size the CMBR fluctuations tend to disperse all objects into smaller ones, instead. This is the domain of quantum mechanics theory, which doesn't recognize the gravity and in which the wave packets of all particles expand into infinity. The definition of time arrow by spontaneous entropy arrow will therefore depend on the dimensional scale used and the entropy of the Universe as a whole will not change - it's observer dependent. A primitive observers will perceive the Universe smaller and primitive too, whereas the more complex observers will perceive it larger and more complex. The intelligent life occupies the 2 cm dimensional scale just because this scale provides the highest stability in CMBR field.

beelize, honestly I don't understand what the hell you are talking about and this 2 cm figure is something that sounds purely pulled out of thin air. This last post made me laugh, seriously you think intelligence can't occupy a space under 2cm, I bet you a quantum computer could fit on a chip that small and it could contain all the software and components necessary to create an artificial life form. Your words are science babble mashed together hence the 1 ratings you've gotten for this... whatever the hell it is. If I wanted bogus theories that are amusing reads I would go to a conspiracy site and find plenty of gems of truth to ignore amongst an infinite pile of crap.

..if you have empty space and a stationary photon, the space is moving behind it and thus time is necessary.

IMO Sorli's definition of time is silly and tautological. You cannot define the time as a numerical order of material change in space, because this order is defined with light (or another energy spreading) in time. In AWT the existence of time cannot be separated from existence of space. We can imagine it like density fluctuations inside of dense gas. If this gas would be completely homogeneous, then we could see anything from it. But at the moment, when we can observe something, because some density gradients exist in it, then the reality will become oriented: the transverse waves of light will spread along the longer side of gradients (and they will define the space dimension in such way), whereas the longitudinal waves will prefer the shorter one. The existence of gradient implies the violation of symmetry of reality and its breaking into time and space dimensions.

The theory of time as the fourth dimension of space is falsifiable and in our last article we prove there are strong indications that it might be wrong

Unfortunately, the most interesting part is missing: _How_ can one falsify the theory of time as the fourth dimension of space? Which kind of experiment/observation could disprove the fundamental existence of time?

This boundary is not sharp, but the probability of spontaneous evolution of quantum computers (not saying about more complex forms of intelligence) is highly improbable at the terrestrial conditions. The existence of stable quantum computers is dependent on the human care, which will provide the shielding and cooling. The compatibility with wavelength of CMBR is the reason, why the highest number of living species reaches just the size up to 2 cm (insect, plankton) and why human brains operate just with neurons of the same size. The coastal shape, the surface of clouds, the shape of trees and leaves etc. are most richer for this dimensional scale, too.

The article seems to keep talking about "motion" and "change" without time. The example of the photon moving one Planck length in four dimensional space. So does this bring in the necessity of particles as history lines and require strong determinism?

Just when I was getting used to having free will again.

If a photon moved a Planck length in 4D between point 1 and 2 and struck something in just the right way, could it reflect back to point ? Why not?

stealthc

..the theory of time as the fourth dimension of space is falsifiable..

Frankly I don't understand this stance at all. What Mr. Amrit Sorli basically does, he's trying to replace the time formulation with his own spatial one - and after then he is saying, the formulation of time as another dimension of space is wrong. Every theory has its weak and stronger parts. For example the concept of extradimensions is the best part of string theory and the four dimensional definition of space-time is the strongest part of relativity theory. It's not surprising, Einstein was so upset, when Minkowski published it in 1910 - it actually put the relativity into another level.

So if the Planck length is the minimum distance that a photon can move, and the speed of light is constant, and light cannot escape the gravity well of a black hole, then it must be that gravity is creating units of space in the path of the photon at a rate faster than (or at least as fast as) the photon can hop to the next unit. The speed of light would still be the speed limit for motion, but space would be created (or destroyed) spontaneously, like some sor to quantum foam. Would that be what quantum gravity is about?

Gravity could also be thought of as dragging space into the black hole, but that would imply motion, which leads back to the speed of light being exceeded. Dragging is not necessary to get things to fall into the black hole. If gravity creates more units of space on the far side of an object in a gravity well, and destroys them on the near side, then space would act like a conveyor belt toward the center, without necessarily having any true motion of the object.

..the universe doesn't revolve around your ability to observe, it isn't observer dependent, it still is here long before anybody ever came along to look and notice something..

I'm saying, the wavelength of CMBR enabled to evolve human brain neurons of the same size, which makes the Universe symmetric around human observer size. The distance scale of most chaotic portion of Universe (the CMBR photons) therefore corresponds the distance scale of most complex portion of it (it's the human brain). I'm opened to admit the exception for your brain, though - if you insist on it.

stealthc

I guess "creating" units of space is not right. If units of space are constantly popping into and out of existence on their own, then gravity could be defined as the tendency of units of space to persist. The stronger the gravity (i.e., the closer to a massive object), the less likely the unit of space will persist, so other objects will tend to remain close. The farther from a massive object, the more likely that units of space will persist.

Maybe that could account for dark energy; all you need is a lot of space between objects, which is what you have in intergalactic space, and even moreso between galaxy clusters.

what looks like things popping in and out of existence is just our most microscopic view of things and if we could see even further to smaller things we'd see that there are smaller forms of energy that make this all happen. Seriously things do not pop in and out of existence, that is an illusion caused by having a limited view of what is really happening. That is what your zero point field is all about. Who knows perhaps neutrino radiation has a huge role to play in the universes accelerated expansion, produced by the nature of fusion and fission reactions. Neutrinos are not inert there is something very important about the fact that they are so ghostly and can transition through matter with only very weak interaction. I would think that most of what there is to discover in particle physics are more and more such ghostly things but I can tell you that aether, is not one of them and never will be. If you wanna convince me show me one damn innovation this theory has produced?

Give me one thing this theory discovers that hasn't been already discovered by some other theory?

AWT is general theory and it doesn't predict well the particular phenomena (which are maintained well with particular theories). But the concepts of time and space are explained in it quite well. As an analogy of timeless and space-less universe can serve the underwater for surface ripples. Although such underwater is full of fishes, for surface waves it simply doesn't exist, because they cannot spread through it. It's too chaotic and disarranged for them. You can model the space-time formation in such environment with condensation of supercritical water vapor, for example. At the certain moment the stringy density fluctuations will emerge, which will enable the propagation of transverse waves at distance. On the picture bellow is an example of such space-time foam formed with condensing supercritical carbon dioxide fluid.

Why not? Are you eternal or what? Actually most of phenomena and objects are temporary only - the only eternal stuff is the Universe itself in aether model. The exclusion of time from reality basically implies the statical Universe. I cannot imagine, how to model dynamical stuffs with statical ones.

If you wanna convince me show me one damn innovation this theory has produced

Just in this thread the following predictions of AWT are listed:

1) for radiowaves the Universe will exhibit blue shift2) the gravitational lenses disperse the radiowaves3) for microwaves the gravitational lens don't exist4) the intensity of radiowave sources would violate the ISL in positive way5) for microwaves the Sunyaev-Zheldowitch effect doesn't exist6) the remote galaxies shrink with time, not expand7) for radiowaves the pressure of radiation is negative

Which other theory predicts this? You should consider, Einstein predicted just the gravitational lensing and he become famous immediately. What should I expect at the case of confirmation of these effects? Seven Nobel prices or what? I'm not saying, I'm genius - but the AWT is not so silly, as you're pretending here all the time.

What is being suggested about time must also then hold true for 3D space.

Dimensionality is applied incrementalism, regardless of which dimension we speak of. All dimensions are measures of relative motions. This a purely a function of mind in relation to reality. Reality without an observer can only be discussed theoretically, same as Reality with one.

Non-dimensional Reality with infinite dimensions experienced by mind.

All phenomena are "real" experiences of mind using conceptual dimensionality to order experience. A self-sustaining causality loop we cannot escape for the rather obvious reason that we could not experience otherwise.

For those who don't understand the necessity of the observer, I ask how there can be relative measures without? With a purely hypothetical referent, imaginary baselines and such, it still requires someone to hypothesize. With so called "real" or "physical" referents, these have to be selected as the basis for all subsequent applied dimensionality.

The time and space concepts are highly symetric. The wide class of animals (dolphins, bats, insects) are using longitudinal waves of sound instead of transverse waves of light and they're navigating through space-time with time intervals instead of space intervals. And their brains are quite comfortable with it. Even some blind people can navigate through space-time via time intervals. The space-time symmetric world is therefore not so distant from our reality, as many people believe.

Seriously things do not pop in and out of existence, that is an illusion caused by having a limited view of what is really happening.

The helium atoms in vacuum are doing eternal motion in the same way, like the pollen grain in water by Brownian motion (as the result, the cooled helium never freeze at room pressure - it's macroscopic effect independent to observer). Many other phenomena (Casimir force, for example) have their exact counterparts in material environments. So I don't think, such phenomena can be explained just with our limited view. The conclusion is, the vacuum around us is physically moving and we are swimming in it like fishes in water or better to say, like the quantum vortices inside of superfluid - just its incredible density disallows us to observe it directly.

AWT is general theory and it doesn't predict well the particular phenomena (which are maintained well with particular theories).

Your whole "theory" is meaningless. You've never explained how to use it to derive anything. It's quite apparent you simply CLAIM everything is a result of the aether (only after the facts are established, otherwise), without bothering to explain why and how your "theory" supposedly works.

The sad part is the less knowledgeable and less experienced readers fall for your tricks and (at least for awhile) mistakenly believe you have some expertise, You are a fraud and a con artist, without conscience or shame.

"Anyone who thinks they're important is usually just a pompous moron who can't deal with his or her own pathetic insignificance and the fact that what they do is meaningless and inconsequential."- William Thomas

1) for radiowaves the Universe will exhibit blue shift2) the gravitational lenses disperse the radiowaves3) for microwaves the gravitational lens don't exist4) the intensity of radiowave sources would violate the ISL in positive way5) for microwaves the Sunyaev-Zheldowitch effect doesn't exist6) the remote galaxies shrink with time, not expand7) for radiowaves the pressure of radiation is negative

Which other theory predicts this? Consider the point 1) for example - this is how the waves are dispersing at the water surface. The waves of wavelength larger than the capillary waves are dispersing toward longer wavelengths, the waves of shorter wavelengths are shrinking their wavelength even more:

"Anyone who thinks they're important is usually just a pompous moron who can't deal with his or her own pathetic insignificance and the fact that what they do is meaningless and inconsequential."- William Thomas

"..When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him..."

Jonathan Swift

Frankly, the citations aren't the best way, how to (dis)prove something. Which phenomena violates the dense aether model of vacuum in your opinion?

In the InterPositional model, lambda is superimposed with the density acceleration factor timescale (DAFT) resulting in radiation balance with the cross space vector across all 4 dimensions except near the dual singularities (+/-) which resonate with only the green bosons as predicted by the stringless axiom.

"The basic reason for the small amplitude of this effect is that gravitational lensing preserves surface brightness density. In the case of discrete sources, this sort of effect can result in magnification, but it's not something that will induce anisotropies in a uniform background."

Finally, that you say that there can be no such thing as Time travel is a phenomenal admission of truth, I applaud it and you. To be able to time travel would require the establishing and choosing of an object with a known and absolute position. This is clearly an impossibility.

1. there are no stationary objects in Space. everything moves;2. there are no objects traveling a straight vector;

thanks very much.

What you said up until time travel sounded good. Stick around for fifty years and you will be proven wrong about time traveling into the past.

.."if radio waves are shifted into the ultraviolet part of the spectrum, we still say that the light is redshifted - shifted toward lower frequencies"..

So shift to ultraviolet part of spectrum is the shift toward lower frequencies? Wow...

OK, where's the boundary of the "red-shift" concept, after then? Where is the wavelength of the "red"? If infrared waves are shifted into the ultraviolet part of the spectrum, can we still say, that the light is redshifted?

.."if radio waves are shifted into the ultraviolet part of the spectrum, we still say that the light is redshifted"..

OK, where's the boundary of the "red-shift" concept, after then? Where is the wavelength of the "red"? If infrared waves are shifted into the ultraviolet part of the spectrum, can we still say, that the light is redshifted?

Moron. What's this got to do with your "prediction?" You're just trying to distract from the fact that I just showed everyone how stupid you are.

In regards to entanglement, would it be one photon occupying two locations on the same time point or would two photons sharing the same time point disassociated with position ... is Schrödinger's cat dead or alive anywhere at any time?This article doesn't do much to express non-Newtonian physics as I see.

but you haven't mathematically defined your aether wave theory, so who knows what violates it?

Mathematic is based on formal logics. If you have theory defined logically, their logical deductions cannot violate it or any math, which is built on this logical framework later. For example, the order of Venus phases in heliocentric model is difficult to formulate mathematically, nevertheless it still provides the clear prediction and the way, how to falsify the geocentric model.

For example, string theory is using Lorentz symmetry postulate (of relativity) and the existence of extradimensions. Which it the logically flawed combination, because the extradimensions would manifest itself just with Lorentz symmetry violation. So we can say safely, string theory is fringe theory and it cannot lead into distinct solution, because it's based on the logically inconsistent postulate set. And you needn't to derive any equation for being able to recognize it.

but you haven't mathematically defined your aether wave theory, so who knows what violates it?

Mathematic is based on formal logics. If you have theory defined logically, their logical deductions cannot violate it or any math, which is built on this logical framework later. For example, the order of Venus phases in heliocentric model is difficult to formulate mathematically, nevertheless it still provides the clear prediction and the way, how to falsify the geocentric model.

All you're saying here is you have nothing to stand on - as there is no math (and there certainly isn't any "logic") to your "theory!"

Why do you insist on continually making such a fool of yourself?

"Anyone who thinks they're important is usually just a pompous moron who can't deal with his or her own pathetic insignificance and the fact that what they do is meaningless and inconsequential."- William Thomas

Isn't time what we percieve as the expansion of the universe? If the universe was not expanding, it wouldn't exist. It's an effect caused by motion, not actually a dimension.

Unfortunately the time is not what we are perceive as the expansion of the Universe. But we can define the time with entropy and if entropy of Universe is wavelength/distance scale dependent (as AWT implies), then the entropic time arrow at general scale doesn't exist in the same way, like the space. Which corresponds the notion of infinitely dense aether, which is so stochastic, no wave can spread through it in the same way, like the surface waves cannot spread in underwater. Such aether is experimentally undetectable, after then - although it could be still full of fishes and dolphins or whatever else... Such insight still doesn't differ from dispersive perspective at the water surface: at the sufficient distance every causal ripple disappear in the underwater noise.

"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff."One of my favorite, all-time sci-fi quotes. From the "Blink" episode. My favorite sci-fi episode of all sci-fi shows.

If the universe was not expanding, it wouldn't exist. It's an effect caused by motion, not actually a dimension.

If we would prove, the Universe is collapsing instead in the long-wavelength spectrum, will it prove, we don't exist? In AWT the expansion of Universe is dispersive effect of vacuum fluctuations. If these fluctuations would disappear, we wouldn't observe anything, not just time. Apparently the existence of CMBR noise is more fundamental, then the existence of entropic time in the same way, like the existence of water is more fundamental, than the existence of water surface (in supercritical water no surface exists).

.. as there is no math (and there certainly isn't any "logic") to your "theory!"..

The dispersion of ripples at the water surface cannot be described with formal math in deterministic way - nevertheless it still has some logics in it. The physicists are ignoring the emergent multiparticle phenomena systematically just because of the absence of reliable models - but it doesn't mean, these phenomena doesn't exist. We exhausted nearly all meaningful ways, how to describe universe in deterministic way, so I'm trying to draw inspiration from these indeterministic ones.

This is totally consistent, as far as I can tell, with the cosmology of Alfred North Whitehead, as explained in his masterwork, Process and Reality. I still think that guy had it figured out, read it if you can.

I'm quite sure about red-shift regarding the distributed radiowave background. But I'm not so sure regarding the negative refraction of radiowaves with gravitational lens. We should realize, the radiowaves are spreading in inverse space-time, so that their refraction with black holes is negative from perspective of these black holes - but from our perspective it still appears positive. After all, the same effect could explain the positive rest mass of antimatter at the high energy spectrum. At the water surface the celerity curve doesn't go through inversion, just through the infimum. The math will not save you from sign inversion, if you haven't robust logical model on the mind.

In this case the mainstream physics recognized quite correctly, they appear larger, because their light is blurred with the CMBR noise in the same way, like the distant lights observed through fog. The question only is, why the red shift isn't explained with dispersion in the same way?

But recently we are observed many well developed galaxies in the Hubble deep field, which excludes the possibility, such galaxies could evolve during Big Bang. If we have galaxies older than the visible part of Universe and the red shift, then the tired light model is the only feasible explanation.

This is totally consistent, as far as I can tell, with the cosmology of Alfred North Whitehead, as explained in his masterwork, Process and Reality.

The atemporal universe concept of A. Sorli or Whitehead is not new in physics at all. These atemporal ideas we can find in work of J.A. Wheeler, D. Bohm, J. Barbour, P.Yourgrau, Dennis A. Wright, P. Lynds, Ron Larther and many others. But I'm still missing the testable predictions with atemporal approach. The explanation of Zenos paradox is not enough, because we have other interpretations, which are explaining it as well and they even lead into testable predictions (compare the quantum Zeno's effect)

We can say, whole the quantum mechanics is basically atemporal, because the immediate values of wave function aren't observable directly from outside of quantum objects. Therefore in quantum world the atemporal model of universe is of much larger relevance, than in relativity world.

i really enjoyed this article. this is what science is about. One might gather that they are saying time is a human tool. They gave a solution that reminds me of doing proofs in geometry class, and that is the way real facts work.

..t has only a mathematical value, and no primary physical existence..

Space s suffers with the same problem. We can measure the volume of saucer, yes - but what will remain, if we remove the vessel? I can paraphrase easily, we aren't measuring distances, but the sequence of objects existing in time. If one of objects disappears during measurement, then the whole distance measurement has no meaning and the space remains undefined. Space quantity has its meaning only as a dual quantity of time.

The commentary is expected. It is all too human for humans to look at space, and define that where this is, it is an infinite 'amount' of 'place holders'. And when looking at an infinite 'amount' of 'place holders', it is all too human to want and need order - numerical order. One of many rules for 'order' reserved exclusively, until now, for time.

Frajo's 'Einwand'(objection?)is justified. A concept provoking a new 'order' will find experimentation the perfect justification to orphan or adapt this birth.

Tesla agrees. Will this take other 100 years discussion?Can someone imagine a clock inside a clock? Yes. But they are 2 Clocks and not one Right? Space has a lot of clocks. Observers exist in their own Space Dimension with their own clocks but they can sync with other clocks. Let them exist in their own Space Dimension at a given clock frequency and let them travel without Time in Time.How does this Sound? :)

This article must sound awfully familiar if you've read my comments on time in other threads. I also got low marks from all you physics types. You don't need to be a physicist to have insight into the truth, in fact it might even prevent you from seeing some truths.

As I've said before and received low marks for:Time travel is impossible. Physics understanding of time leaves much to be desired and is probably wrong. Now is simultaneous everywhere, and there is only now. The passage of time is purely perceptual and relative, measured by benchmarks. Ours are the speed of chemical reactions and any changes we perceive in the passage of time anywhere is just a change in the speed of our benchmarks, not a change in time.

This article shows that physics is starting to learn a bit about time.

I've also said: there aren't lots of dimensions as string theory requires, time is not the 4th dimension, you can time travel to the future but only by existing in every intermediate instant, wormholes may exist but will only allow spatial travel not time travel and the universe is a sphere

Congratulations on the article, Amrit. I'll have to add my two cents though:Humanity treats time as a linear progression from past to future because it is foundational to the narrative function that is the basis of serial cause and effect rationality. The problem is physically modeling it as such. It is not that the present moves from past to future, but that the changing configuration of what exists, turns the future into the past. We don't travel the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. The present is the constant and it is the events which come and go. Physically, past and future do not exist, because the same energy is just changing configurations. As an effect of motion, time, rate of change, is similar to temperature, level of activity. Quantum mechanics uses an external, absolute clock because it admits simultaneity and so the process goes from past simultaneous configurations to future ones.

Relativity models time as part of the four dimensional geometry, in which points in space and time exist relative to one another and there is no absolute time. If we were to eliminate the external clock from QM and just consider time as the dynamic, it is the collapsing of future probabilities which leads to current actualities. While all input into any event exists prior to its occurrence, the lightcone of this input only comes together at the point of occurrence. So while all physical laws deciding the outcome are deterministic, the total input cannot be known prior to the occurrence, so it is still probabilistic. Even if there were a method of faster than light communication to gather knowledge of all input prior to an occurrence, then the same faster than light potential could exist for information affecting that outcome and so the problem would be repeated.

Ah come on guys. If some scientist wants to stack events and not measure the time between them, that's fine with me. However, I need 8 hours of rest every night.. and we'll still be able to measure the 'age' of materials by the determining the amount of decay in certain of the elements that exist within them.

I agree Lorentzian contraction isn't "real" because even approaching C the object doesn't locally perceive any change in time or physical contraction. From our low velocity inertial frame we perceive contraction and spatial deceleration because like 2D stick figures that can not perceive 3d displacement, we can not perceive 4d displacement. beyond .707C the object appears to slow down while contracting faster. locally both frames still measure C, normal energy density and no time dilation because these can only be revealed by relative measure. The biggest consequence may not be at the astronomical scale and increased energy density for acceleration or equivalently gravity wells but at the ano scale where Casimir supression causes lower energy density. Here we can find an explanation for condensed gas like deuterium ice or fractional hydrogen because now we are loading gas into larger "volumes" of space than should exist given exterior dimensions - paralell parking gas on the time axis

ZephirAWT

A good night's reading of Kant's Space and time [The first part of the Critique of Pure Reason, the 'Transcendental Aesthetic] is worth every word..... the structure that we use to think by is essential in the forms of space and time...

Yes,.... he defined 'phenomenal reality' as that conceptualized,... i.e subjected to a-priori intuitions of mind, ...space, time, causality. An intuitive understanding of reality necessarily implies that is has been conformed within this conceptual structure. This may be an issue wrt intuitive understanding, because unconceprualized reality (noumenal reality),... may not contain these a-prior subjective artifacts of the mind, yet observations still must be made consistent for science to make predictions. Enter Bohr, who in effect rediscovered Kant as the essential point of the Copenhagen interpretation.

To me, what we are used to calling "time" is a ratio comparing two instances of change. In an example, one of them is the rotation of a second or minute hand on an analog clock, and the other is the movement of a runner along a track. We say the runner covered a quarter mile in a minute, but really we are comparing the distance of 1/4 mile with the distance between minute markings on the clockface. Where is the time? It's not being measured - just two measurements of spatial dimensions only.

You can. Go really really really fast. Then you travel slower in time than those you left behind.Changing the direction you travel in time is another and if you had said that I would have rated you five instead of a one.

What about Godel's CTLs? Although I guess you aren't really changing direction as much as pushing forward back. Hmmm, I'm going hungry.

"The faintest galaxies visible with the Hubble Space Telescope were only a few billion light years from us when they emitted their light. This means that very distant galaxies look much larger than you would normally expect as if they were only about 2 or 3 billion light years from us"

It's not only about Sunyaev Zel'dovich effect, but about integrated SachsWolf effect

Now you're just covering up your SZ blunder, but it's nice to see you did a little actual research. Now, read them and let me know if you see anything about your tachyons in the papers you referenced...

...No? Imagine that!

everything what we can observe/detect are the surface ripples

This is an example of a hyper-dimensional point of view. Your water spider is not in situ with the waves, but is above the waves. Therefore, your analogy fails.

I wonder whether the the conceptual problem isn't non-linear, chaotic systems. There is the same statistical behavior, based on a lack of clear reductionistic linear cause and effect, but change in scalar input, such as energy, complexity, instability, etc. being a factor.

Is time the basis of motion, or motion the basis of time?If you want to derive time from motion, all you really need is change of configuration, but how do you derive motion from time?Time is deduced from measurements of motion. What exactly is time? Entropy? Change? Duration? Fourth dimension? We perceive the present as moving from past events to future ones, but we also perceive the sun as traveling across the sky. It took awhile to understand how this process worked. It should be noted that epicycles were extremely mathematically precise. The problem was conceiving a physical explanation for why they were so effective. So all I'm saying is that the present doesn't move, the events do.

But to your point, huh? Relativity wreaked havoc on time. Godel created a consistent solution within the EFE where CTL's could exist, and further, that one could travel one of these loops with the proper technology. "Hey, here's my past!"

In order for these researchers to be correct they need to address time in general relativity, specifically the implication that CTL's can exist in a consistent solution to the EFE.

@uba: Unfortunately Zephir can't be so easily dismissed. Good try though. (On the fermion point, I believe he is calling the particle-antiparticle pairs fermions not the CMBR photons. But he talks in circles so who knows.) I am anxious to see his replies.

And your reference was written by a schoolteacher and a geologist (not cosmologists)."

The "Atlas of the Universe" site was (AFAIK) created and maintained (at least up to 2006) by Richard Powell, a British astrophysicist: http://www.atlaso.../me.html

Pretty cool site, too.

ZephirAWT-beelize54 wrote:

"But recently we are observed many well developed galaxies in the Hubble deep field, which excludes the possibility, such galaxies could evolve during Big Bang. If we have galaxies older than the visible part of Universe and the red shift, then the tired light model is the only feasible explanation."

Even though these observations have been explained to him, in some detail, here is yet another claim of objects in the universe OLDER than the universe.

Time t cannot be dimension because according to the formalism X4 = ict, time t cannot be X4. Time t is only a component of X4 that we obtain with clocks. With clocks we measure numerical order of change in space: this is time t.

VestaZ

VestaZ

And all I am saying is that Superman went back in time man!!!... Relativity wreaked havoc on time....

The math describing relativity is accurate. The problem is when we attach a physical description to it and come up with warping spacetime, wormholes, blocktime, etc. The math behind epicycles was also quite accurate. It was just when they tried to develop a physical theory to explain it and came up with giant cosmic gearwheels. Ask yourself, when you pour a cup of coffee and eventually drink it; did you travel some meta-physical dimension from pouring it to finishing it, or did the event of your pouring it recede into the past, as you eventually consumed it?Is there some physically real dimension of time, along which the present moves, or is it a changing configuration of what exists, such that each event recedes into the past, as the configuration of what exists changes? If you allow change in the present, then measures of duration are relative to physical context.

The math describing relativity is accurate. The problem is when we attach a physical description to it...

What are you talking about? We have, so far, demonstrated General Relativity to be an accurate theory to predict and explain observations we make in the physical world. If you don't "attach" it to the physical world it is just a set of equations.

Now, if you are referring to the problem with finding the physical "cause" of relativity, that is where if these guys are right we would need to adjust GR since it allows for CTLs and the like.

The rest of what you say is just babble.

VestaZ

I'm with rwinners. Replacing "time" with "change" is purely cosmetic. So if the previous state of the Universe was X0, and the new one is X1 obtained by the change function F with X1=F(X1)... Applying this recursively, don't you implicitly obtain a state-space model with X[t]=F(X[t-1])?

You're just replacing God's loop with infinite recursion. I sure hope the Universe's call stack is huge! Unless it features some form of tail-recursion optimization, which is... you guessed it, a loop.

I was kidding but the main point is that a total ordering of events/change is equivalent to an independent variable of time.

I understand thought that the concept may be more useful in cases where you can follow a chain of events forward and end up where you started -- closed time-like curves and the like -- but I thought existing theories of manifolds were already able to cope with that (being no expert on Riemannian geometry and its cousins).

It seems, I'm the only person on the world, who actually understands space-time, extradimensions and tachyons in this moment.

You are the only person that's indecent enough to use dozens of different accounts on the same site. It's these bad habits that get you low rankings. VestaZ=VestaR=Zephyr=...Why don't you join Hartwig Thim?

Yeah, I know. I've seen others try and likewise fail. That's why I think he's a chatbot. I suspect that not even a completely insane person could learn as little as he has in the years he's been posting here. I was just venting some long held frustration. I really liked knocking down his "predictions" (it wasn't very hard to do).

(On the fermion point, I believe he is calling the particle-antiparticle pairs fermions not the CMBR photons.

I suspect as much too, but the CMBR (that we detect) is entirely made of thermal radiation (photons). If he wants to prove their source is ZPE, he's going to have to prove it locally.

But he talks in circles so who knows.)

Aint that the truth!

I am anxious to see his replies.

Why? It's just more of the same. When I really stump him, he just ignores those parts and carries on as if his errors don't exist.

The "Atlas of the Universe" site was (AFAIK) created and maintained (at least up to 2006) by Richard Powell, a British astrophysicist:

Right. That was my reference, not Zephir's. But I can see how you might get confused by the way I put the text together. The quote above the atlas link was from the atlas. My sentence below it referred to an earlier post of Zephir's.

Pretty cool site, too.

I love the atlas as it's well done, and layman accessible.

Zephir's stupid reference (written by the schoolteacher and geologist) was this one:

Its interesting that the Vesta AWITBS sockpuppet didn't even last one day. I read it, gave it the highly deserved one, looked at the profile and there weren't any posts. All I have to do right now is post this and refresh the page and I will have made a post about a nonentity.

Except that the cheater will still be here under another name. I guess he was under the delusion that no one knew what was going on since we had yet to have another sockpuppet war with the rat bastard.

He behaved himself for months and now he has THREE different names on this one thread. That is what we get for thinking he might have changed.

So whichever moderator that banned VestaZ deserves a cheer. Of course we would like to give THREE cheers for three bannings. But beelize54 is still here and ZephirAWT is still here with rubbish about wave on water and the usual ludicrous claims of being a genius because he is picked on while proving with each post that he is just plain wrong.

what looks like things popping in and out of existence is just our most microscopic view of things and if we could see even further to smaller things we'd see that there are smaller forms of energy that make this all happen. Seriously things do not pop in and out of existence, that is an illusion caused by having a limited view of what is really happening. That is what your zero point field is all about. ... but I can tell you that aether, is not one of them and never will be. If you wanna convince me show me one damn innovation this theory has produced?

stealthc, I thought you were replying to my post about units of space being created/destroyed, but then you said this thing about aether, so I'm not sure. I do not bother to read most of the impenetrable aether stuff.

Anyway, I am a complete layman in physics and math, but I get that the popping in and out is more metaphor than real. At that level, though, it works to get the concept across.

But yeah, I've seen him ref the Unzicker-Fabian paper multiple times (myself and others here have pointed out some of its flaws to on several occasions). What's interesting is his occasional practice of referring to some exotic, dense theoretical paper in PRL or ApJ and such and claim that it backs up some wild claim of his (this while he has already admitted that this knowledge of mathematics, especially at these levels, is lacking). Better yet, sometimes they refute his claims!

Great to hear VestaZ is history. Usually when Zeyphir's posts are getting pounded rather thoroughly, a few new sockpuppets appear to parrot his claims. This is (sometimes) followed with a period of angry posts ('your're all ignorant trolls' etc.) and then, occasionally, some blessed silence. Here's hoping for *blessed silence*. :^)

After listening to all the arguments and counter arguments in these comments... The following may be closer to actual reality...

If total (overall) 3-dimensional cosmic space exists as a hyperspherical geometric (spiral vortex, triple loop, double helix) standing wave which must have an endless inner series of fractal involved harmonics... Then, metric time exists solely as a measure of its change from one frequency phase order (spectrum) to another, ad infinitum down to the smallest virtual sub quantum particle-wave in the Planck volume.

When such total space collapses back to its initial ZPE singularity (i.e., its unconditioned, potential energy state prior to its initial dimensional manifestation or cosmogenesis) Its associated metric time would also cease to exist as it resolves back to its initial state of zero-change or infinite duration (i.e., potential metric cosmic Time) along with its total potential mass/energy (ZPE or angular spin momentum)... (More)

I have an idea for a time machine. It comes from my lack of understanding on what antimatter time reversal could mean. Here it goes:

Instantly convert a human into antimatter inside a vacuum chamber. I have no earthly clue as to /how/ that could possibly be done, but let's just say it's possible in principle (feel free to critique the feasibility, though). The object now travels back in time. Since parity is reversed, could it also move "backwards" in space, thus following the past trajectory of Earth through space?

Inside the vacuum chamber, put a portable, opposite, version of the device in the chamber so the time traveler can reverse the process and "stop" traveling backwards and "enter" its new "present time".

Even if this were all possible in theory, I can't imagine how the object could move backwards in time any faster than time normally proceeds. So, the further back you want to go, the longer you have to wait, I guess. Also, once travels stops; annihilations???

I'm with rwinners. Replacing "time" with "change" is purely cosmetic. So if the previous state of the Universe was X0, and the new one is X1 obtained by the change function F with X1=F(X1)... Applying this recursively, don't you implicitly obtain a state-space model with X[t]=F(X[t-1])?

You're just replacing God's loop with infinite recursion. I sure hope the Universe's call stack is huge! Unless it features some form of tail-recursion optimization, which is... you guessed it, a loop.

Dear Sir,

we are not replacing time with change, we are showing time we measure with clocks is numerical order of change.

Accordingly, Sorlis claim (referring to our 3-D physical space) that Time is exactly the order of events; and with clocks we measure the numerical order of material change, i.e., motion in space is entirely correct.

Its, therefore, entirely foolish to think that Time can be a dimension of physical space itself, that the arrow of time can be reversed, or that travel in time by physical beings is possible.

Obviously, while fractal involved 3-d space cannot exist without metric time (i.e., change in motion, frequency, position, force, etc.) with the first change being the initial emanation, at near infinite frequency, of the 1-d force ray (from the ZPE spin momentum singularity) that compose the initial cosmic fields... Such changes in time cannot be considered an actual linear dimension of the 3-d space itself... e.g., How can the changes in frequency of light (that determines color, etc.) be a property of the space that contains the photon waveform?

I looked at your website. Are you serious? Or is it intentional word wuze? I ask because it IS word wuze. You are using words without any fact based meaning attached to them at any time. "ZPE spin momentum singularity" is about as meaningless a noise as I have seen on this site. Even the AWITBS crap has more relevance to reality.

Words exist to communicate about facts and ideas. When they are detached from the facts or the original ideas they were created to communicate about they no longer have any meaning. For instance

Spin momentum singularity has NO meaning at all in a single point. Spin in the sense of angular momentum only has reality in comparison to the rest of the universe. Without OTHER objects there is no angular momentum. GR shows this and so far the evidence supports this.

Please try to attach your concept to FACTS so they can have some meaning. Spinning out meaningless words just to fill space is a waste of time or change in terms of this article

You imagine sitting with your son or daughter on the sofa and discussing on time. As a physicist you are aware you sit inside a quantum vacuum made of out QS volume of Planck. Inside Volume of Plank there is no change and so no numerical order of change. Change and numerical order (time) start at scale of Planck. In quantum vacuum before, now and after exist only in a sense of numerical order, means duration of an event is exclusively a mathematical quantity. From this perspective your life is longer than the life of your child but only in a mathematical sense. From this perspective universe age has only a mathematical dimension. In Princeton Einstein and Gödel has been discussed walking back home about universe without time.

In dense aether model of space-time with water surface the space dimension corresponds the direction parallel with water surface, the time dimension corresponds the direction perpendicular to water surface. It explains, why we can move in space easily, but not in time. And it illustrates too, why time always has an arrow (density gradient) assigned, whereas the space not. The removal of time from physics may solve some isolated problems, but it will bring a much more problems in another areas, so it's not advantageous from utilitarian reasons.

Fish can move through Water-space the same way that Heavenly-objects and space-ships can move through Space-space.

As for Time, we do move in Time (positive increments only) but not fast enough to get anywhere quickly.

Time is an element of the vector[] to determine the relative position of one object to another. It cant be absolute bc we dont know where we are; we have no knowledge of what is where.

idknowAn experiment which proves duration of an event is not a physical quantity. You walk on the street 3,6 km. You need 1 hour to pass distance of 3,6km. Distance is physical quantity, duration is not because you do not walk in time; time is only a numerical order of your walk. 1 hour is 3600 seconds. Each step takes 1 second. 3600 seconds is a number that shows you numerical order of your motion on the distance of 3,6km. Same is with the fish moving in water. We do not remove time from physics, we just give it right meaning based on experimental facts.

exist only in a sense of numerical order, means duration of an event is exclusively a mathematical quantity.

From this perspective your life is longer than the life of your child but only in a mathematical sense. From this perspective universe age has only a mathematical dimension.

Expect discourse. Our "walk back home", in all fairness to your concept and point of view, deserves a length of duration,that one can safely assume, will last longer than the path Einstein and Gödel took walking home.

Emphasize the "Race course" paradox and your solution. De-emphasizing 'time' and emphasize the 'mathematical sense' of numerical order - an intuitive approach that helps children of all ages(!), to grasp this.

Even mathematics harbors 'primitive notion' - the last defense in human reasoning.

A Wikipedia excerpt:"In mathematics, logic, and formal systems, a primitive notion is an undefined concept. In particular, a primitive notion is not defined in terms of previously ..."

So you know, I have a real problem with the two times in GR. My belief (intuitive only) is that CTLs are an artifact of the incompleteness of GR and that an enhancement of the theory is needed. (Godel pun intended, though everyone hates it when I do it.)

This post is a mix of stuff but is mainly in reply to Pyle but it inherently deals with Amrit.

@Eth: Amrit Sorli is one of the authors of the paper.

I didn't really care. I had not said a single word to him or about him. I was trying to find out why he thinks otherwise. He PMed me before that strange reply to my reply to Dingdong. Dingdong seems to living in his own special world. I am going to copy that reply to the other thread he is infesting.

I thought Amrit was an co-author but these are not his first posts here as is the case most of the time that a co-author chimes in.

It has a header image that does remind me of DingDongDog's website and that is not in his favor. Neither are quite the same as Electric Universe fans but there is an unfortunate similarity of abstract imagery.>>

For us, human beings, this means: the universe is an eternal here and now wherein time measured with clocks is merely a numerical order of change.

I don't see any value of simply replacing time with change. Change can't occur without time or time can't occur without change, though I am not sure about the latter. If there is no difference in the math except the labels why the effort to claim there is no time?

merely a numerical order of change.

Vs merely a numerical order of TIME. One is a meaningless replacement and the other fits human thinking.

Pyle if you saw my posts on MultiVerse and Math concepts you will note that in those time is just a numerical order. Which I find disturbing but I can live with it since it explains why something instead of nothing.

I think it is silly to replace the word TIME with CHANGE for no increase in understanding, or an improvement in the math or any predictions proceeding from the idea.

Pyle, I think I figured out just what the hell you mean by CTL. Closed Timelike Loops which apparently is usually referred as Closed Timelike Curves. I thought CTC require exotic matter of some kind. Such as a naked singularity.

And now for Amrit who seems to have been wanting this, I have no idea why he did but here goes:

idknow

Well neither do I understand that non word. I recommend rereading before posting and using a spell checker. I write in Notepad++ and I have the spell check plugin installed. The dictionary is old and often annoying but it does help and it extensible. It no longer bugs me about 'MultiVerse' for instance.

An experiment which proves duration of an event is not a physical quantity.

That is just playing games with words. Neither space nor time are physical quantities if you want to go that route.

You need 1 hour to pass distance of 3,6km. Distance is physical quantity

Saying it does not make it so. The same exact reasoning or rather bald statement works for time.

The alternative journal "Physics Essays" is definitely not mainstream physics. They even published articles about Ricardo Carezani's "Autodynamics" which tried to replace STR and GTR.Have a look at the current table of contents: physicsessays.org/resource/1/phesem

'You need 1 hour to pass distance of 3,6km. Time is physical quantity'

Playing games with words is a bad sign. Words describe facts for the purposes of communication. If all you can do is change the words you are not dealing with facts and are trying to use Proof by Definition to AVOID possibly inconvenient facts.

'Time is physical quantity, distance is not because you do not walk in space; position is only a numerical order of your walk through time.'

See what happens if you just replace words instead of dealing with facts?

'We do not remove position from physics, we just give it right meaning based on experimental facts.'

And again a simple replacement of time based vs your position based thinking shows that you are simply playing word games.

It has a header image that does remind me of DingDongDog's website and that is not in his favor. Neither are quite the same as Electric Universe fans but there is an unfortunate similarity of abstract imagery.

Everybody should have a look at that website. It's not about physics, it's about spirituality. No more discussion required.

Time and Space are DIMENSIONS. The math using those dimensions WORKS. That no one understands time fully is a result of it simply being a property of the Universe just as Space is. We don't understand the why of space either but we have an intuitive ability to deal with BOTH despite that, probably because we evolved under those conditions. That Time and Space are interlocked in SR and GR is not intuitive because we cannot travel in time with same freedom as we do in space.

Either way they are just dimensions. Changing the labels without something of value coming from it is silly.

"Two contrasting viewpoints on time... One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence... The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure... within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled."

Personally, I subscribe to the former view. The reason being; the only numerical sequence of events time is really tied to, is the speed of light. That is, every other sequence of events is relative to the speed of light, as observed locally.

Fundamental unit of time Planck time is derived from the photon motion, see our article: http://physicsess...rized=nothere is no a single experimental data time has physical existence. Do not understand me wrong, I do not say as Barbour: "time is an illusion", for me time exist but only as a math quantity.

Sorry everyone, I was a bit rushed yesterday and quite vague if you weren't me. Yes, by CTLs I meant Closed Timelike Loops, or Curves I'll use CTCs going forward. Godel showed that a universe was possible that was consistent with GR yet contained these CTCs where one could revist their past. Subsequently the exotics have been linked to CTCs, but my understanding was that Godel universes are just rotating with some special distribution of normal mass. Red shift data seems to indicate we don't live in a Godel universe.

Anyway, this idea of time being a numerical order of change is nice, but it doesn't deal with relativity so it seems pretty 19th century, as everyone has been saying. uba nailed it I think.

@Eth: regarding Amrit:

I had not said a single word to him or about him. I was trying to find out why he thinks otherwise.

My thought is Amrit was rushing to Zephir's aid according to the fringe theory honor code. Similar to a dog owner feeling kinship to another's dog.

Those statements are wrong because Time is a property of SPACE_TIME not space. Time is not relative to speed because it is space-time. A single property with four dimensions.

Mr. Semantics steps in it again. Nevertheless...

I'm with uba on this one. Time is relative. I don't think there is confusion in this statement. Yeah, yeah, yeah: time, space, space-time. Distance is relative too. So there Ethelred, thpppt! The measurement of spacetime, albeit length or duration, is relative to the frame of the observer.

Correct me if you want, but because GR works, the article's theory is bunk until they address it.

@Eth: btw, I loved your correction of "idknow" directed at Amrit. It was a commenter's nick, not a statement by AS. Funny stuff.

In physics time is a mathematical tool which help us to describe physical phenomena. Time is not relative, relative is velocity of material change. And "relativity" starts with massive particles; light has the same speed in all inertial systems, so no relativity by light, see our coming article "The now insights into the SR" - Physics Essays - AIP.

Bullshit. Semantics are what I try to avoid. This is not mere semantics. Space-time is very different way of looking at the Universe from idea of time being separate dimension from space.

I'm with uba on this one. Time is relative.

I am with Einstein on this one. It is all one thing.

So there Ethelred, thpppt!

Julie Andrews. And that is NOT a non-sequitor.

The measurement of spacetime, albeit length or duration, is relative to the frame of the observer.

Movement in Space-time has a fixed total. More movement in one means less in the other. Not thinking about it this way may be what is causing you guys to argue about it being relative or not. The total movement in all four dimensions is always the same. And yes it is relative. If nothing else movement in space-time is relative to the Universe as a whole. But you always move in space-time not just one dimension.

Correct me if you want, but because GR works, the article's theory is bunk until they address it.

Not really. GR works NOW. The rules might have been different in the first fractional moments of space-time. Most physicists are certain that the quantum rules were different IF there was BB. In Brane theory I suppose that would be different.

What I was trying to do is get people to think about space-time as a whole and not separate elements. Sometimes if you can change point of view you gain in insight. Sometimes you start haring off into the wilderness and never return. See Oliver K Manuel for an example.

I think the article is spitwadding. Interesting but not very meaningful at the moment and I suspect nothing will ever come from it. Besides bringing a bunch of Cranks out and Amrit's site looks more that a bit like a Crank site. It wouldn't be the first time a Physorg article was based on the ideas of a Crank. Oliver K. Manual was the central figure in one that I found while doing a search on him. Yes, there is a Physorg article on the Sun having an neutron star at the core.

@Eth: btw, I loved your correction of "idknow" directed at Amrit. It was a commenter's nick, not a statement by AS. Funny stuff.

Oops. I had just received a PM from Amrit and I thought he was responding to my question right above it. When I ran my draft through the spellcheck most of the spelling errors were his. So I thought that was just one more. Oh well maybe he will try Notepad++ anyway. It really does help using a spellcheck. Now if only it would tell me leave out words. I can see them easy the next day but its bloody hard for me when I am writing the post.

n physics time is a mathematical tool which help us to describe physical phenomena.

In physics time is something we use because we experience literally every instance of our existence.

Time is not relative, relative is velocity of material change.

No. First it is speed, a scalar, and not velocity, a vector. Second both speed through space and time are relative to observers or the Universe as a whole or your point of origin if it is YOUR speed that you are dealing with.

And "relativity" starts with massive particles;

Well anything with mass OR without mass.

; light has the same speed in all inertial systems,

Inertial or accelerating.

so no relativity by light,

Tell that to a photon in the process of leaving a Black Hole boundary area. It will undergo relativistic redshift.

Relativity is NOT limited to SR. GR effects EVERYTHING including light.

Yeah there I missed two words in a row. They were in my head but they never reached my fingers.

Should be

Now if only it would tell me -WHEN I- leave out words.

I didn't even do it on purpose and I was LOOKING for the damned mistake. I do it so bloody often. Its not a new problem for me either, that is my brain isn't dissolving. I have been doing this since I started on Maximum PC's Comport in 2000.

all theories that imply multidimensional dimensions (as for example string theory) are not falsifiable on experimental level because in all experiments we use 3D instruments. My research group is now developing 3D model that will connect GR and QM; Planck volume is 3D....this is the starting point.

It the Universe is more than 4D, space-time IS 4D not 3D, then any instruments we make are inherently more than 4D. The key is making instruments that can detect that. We can detect the curvature of space for instance. That is likely either occurring in a yet one more dimension or there is some kind of granularity of space and those grains are of variable size.

PMs are for personal discussions. I told you that already. This is not a personal discussion so quit trying to take something that should be public private. It is a complete waste of time for everyone here.

Want to discuss how to avoid that surprised look you have in your photo on your website then I can see that as being something to deal with privately. The science should stay here in public.

The Tortoise paradox does not account for time in a correct manner - Achilles is not being granted the sufficient PERIOD of time needed in order to pass the tortoise. IMO this is a simple and straightforward explanation - it would have been a paradox if Achilles under the given conditions was capable of overtaking the tortoise !

That said: - In order better to understand the concept of timeless Universe - IMO it should be stressed that Timeless Universe must refer to "Noumenal World" out from which "Fenomenal World" is being "extracted or interfered with" by human mind and translated into this vivid impression of a "Real Physical World". In this perspective Noumenal Universe is timeless - and time can be defined as the order of material change in physical world - HOWEVER nothing is being said about how to define MATERIAL CHANGE ! What is changing ? IMO it is the mind (the observer) that integrates the "timeless events". This implicate that Time become a mind-related quality.

Temporal and Atemporal View in PhysicsThe existing temporal view in physics sees material changes taking place in space-time as a fundamental arena of the universe where time, past-present-future, is seen as the fourth dimension of space-time. This temporal view is the result of experiencing material changes within the framework of linear time, past-present-future, which is the fundamental psychological model of the mind through which an observer experiences the material world. In universe there is no linear time as a dimension of space. Quantum space is 3D (Planck Volume is 3D) and time t is a numerical mathematical order of material changes in a 3D space. This atemporal view is closer to the real physical world as the temporal view. It gives us a more adequate picture of physical reality; it is based on the observer that is conscious of his/her psychological time.

Amrit, thanks for responding. Sorry for my first comment not being so serious, as I did not anticipate you would take part in the discussion; though I'm glad you did.

I'd like to ask you one question. I get that you regard time as an ordering and not an axis through which particles travel. But locally, from the point of view of a particle and in its vicinity, taking that ordering of events that it encounters (t1 < t2 < t3...), shouldn't that total ordering implicitly define a field?

The question of whether such a dimension is "instanced" and fixed already (static Universe) or whether our Universe's rules destructively "update and replace" space as events happen is more of a metaphysical one (ie, "implementation details") and can't possibly be answered, so I don't mean to go there.

idknow, you wrote: "Time and Distance are the same thing from different perspectives, measuring the same thing with different scales."

Can you elucidate? Consider human conception. Prior to the conception, ovum and sperm occupy two unique spatial locations (non-coincident). The sperm could pass through a specified location (at one time). And, the ovum can pass the same location earlier (or later). While within parents, the two cannot occupy the same location simultaneously (without a consequential mess). Yet, once fertilized, the two do occupy the same location.

The distance between each of the ovuma and sperm (and the location of interest) can reduce value magnitude to zero. But, while in the two parents, the zero distance cannot be simultaneous. At fertilization, they do. I argue that distance is not the same as time, and time is independent of it. The 3D+T does exist as 4D universe. [I postulate another dimension - thought. Encompassing reality or fantasy, time separates.]

We have, so far, demonstrated General Relativity to be an accurate theory to predict and explain observations we make in the physical world. If you don't "attach" it to the physical world it is just a set of equations. Now, if you are referring to the problem with finding the physical "cause" of relativity, that is where if these guys are right we would need to adjust GR since it allows for CTLs and the like. The rest of what you say is just babble.

I guess I tuned out after this, but the conversation continues. We still exist in the present, but the earlier posts are fading into the past. The present doesn't move along some external dimension, it simply changes form and those areas with higher levels of activity change faster than those areas with lower levels of activity. Acceleration and gravity will slow rates of change. Probability precedes actuality. Future events become past events. This effect of time is relativistic, but it is still contained by what is physical.

yes there might be a link here, universe has its own numerical order (time), that we measure with clocks.

Amrit, thanks for responding. Sorry for my first comment not being so serious, as I did not anticipate you would take part in the discussion; though I'm glad you did.

I'd like to ask you one question. I get that you regard time as an ordering and not an axis through which particles travel. But locally, from the point of view of a particle and in its vicinity, taking that ordering of events that it encounters (t1 < t2 < t3...), shouldn't that total ordering implicitly define a field?

Regarding calculations of relative rate of clocks in GPS we have to impact: one of SR and one of GR. Special Relativity predicts according to formalism (2) that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 µs per day. A prediction by General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away. As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation according to the formalism (3) predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 µs per day. The combination of these two relativistic effects means that the clocks on-board of each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 µs per day. (formalism (2) of Selleri t'=t per Lotentz factor, form (3) see literature). All this can be described in 3D space.

There is little in physics above the quantum level that is not dependent on time. Even at the quantum level there is time. There just isn't an arrow of time at that level. So far nothing you have said is in anything except word replacement.

This temporal view is the result of experiencing material changes within the framework of linear time, past-present-future

And the fact that the math works.

which is the fundamental psychological model of the mind

Nonsense. The mind is biological and chemical. It functions according to the laws of the Universe and it evolved to fit those laws. Psychology is the study of the mind and NOT a process of the mind.

time t is a numerical mathematical order of material changes in a 3D space

Or the changes take place in time. Either way T is part of the equations and they work. Calling a 'numerical mathematical order' does not change that. The order is still the same thing as what we call time. It is silly to try to avoid using a perfectly functional word UNLESS there is something to gain from it. You have failed to show what is gained with your change of terminology. I know what is gained from considering time as a numerical order in my thinking and I have posted it here before. DO YOU know what is gained in YOUR thinking?

This atemporal view is closer to the real physical world as the temporal view.

Possibly but you have yet to show WHY it is.

It gives us a more adequate picture of physical reality

The math is still the same. I went over the concept before. Many times. Long before this article. The world still works out as having time to those that live in it.>>

it is based on the observer that is conscious of his/her psychological time.

Which is poor thinking. Psychological time is quite different from measurable time. How could not have noticed that something seem to take longer than others despite taking the exact same time by actually measurement?

Here is a Zen Koan for physicists: ETERNITY = NOW

Here is reality for Koans. There aren't for reasoning. They are for STOPPING reasoning so it doesn't get in the way of meditation. Usually they are STUPID ideas like the Sound of One Hand Clapping. Eternity does NOT equal now.

mind can not solve that

It just did. It was nonsense.

consciousness yes

Same thing. Or rather in humans consciousness and mind are just two words we use for the functioning of the brain. They are emergent properties and there is really no difference between the two words.

Many idiotic ideas have entered the mainstream. Astrology is just as silly as the idea that the mind or consciousness is somehow independent of the brain.

Fuzzy thinking is not science and treating time as a product of a spiritual mind instead something that a CHEMICAL brain experiences is pretty fuzzy thinking.

All this can be described in 3D space.

Not quite. Space-time is what it is described in. They are about time and space and therefor 3d space is insufficient. And in a 5D space-time gravity supposedly falls right out of the math. Which is why 5 or more dimensions are so popular in efforts to link quantum physics and GR.

Ethelred,It's a question of whether time is a dimension along which events exist, aka. blocktime, or is time the rate of change, due to constant activity. The difference is that in the first, the events and this dimension, are the constant, while the point of the present moves along them. With the second, the present is the constant and it is the events which coalesce out of probabilities and are replace by the process, such that it is the events going future to past.While the entire basis of history and cause and effect logic are the direction of past to future, in order to create a physical theory to explain it, relativity uses the correlation of distance and duration to argue space and time are equivalent and the present is an illusion. While QM uses an external absolute change of instant measurements. The result is by projecting a deterministic past onto a probabilistic future, they end up in multiworlds. On the other hand, if time is simply a collapse of probabilities, as the

physical reality evolves and is the future becoming the past, it retains the present as fundamental and allows physical laws to determine the course of events. Also it retains free will, because if time goes past to future and we only exist at the moment of the present, then we can neither change the past, or affect the future, but if time is an effect of motion, then our input is integral to the events being created.

My opinion is that NO ONES opinion is relevant to the way reality functions.

Time measured with clocks is merely a numerical order of changes that take place in space. We live in space only, not in time.

This is still living in time. A numerical oder of change that fits the physical laws of our universe is indistinguishable from time. It is not in our head that light has specific frequency of oscillation per unit of numerical order.

A and B are indistinguishable. Though A, as stated has the advantage of fitting GR and B is simply the product of you not understanding that a numerical order of change is still the same as A and thus the only thing wrong is your insistence on avoiding SR and GR which have space-time.

Now I must point out that you are evading what I say and ask.

It is silly to try to avoid using a perfectly functional word UNLESS there is something to gain from it.

It is hard to make any sense of these comments when speculations such as CTLs, gravity waves and tachyons are treated as fact. Then for the conversation to degenerate into attempts to validate absolute velocity as a factor in time dilation as opposed to acceleration within gravitational fields just blurs any cognitive reality. Perhaps this article could be classified as a study in abstract zen philosophy and we can then re-focus our abilities on brewing better beer.

No Q_C. If anything I wonder how much Newton would have achieved if physics was his real interest, not his side hobby. I shudder to think what he would have accomplished had he not wasted 90% of his time trying to predict the future via the bible. Despite all that Newton achieved I still have to consider his mind wasted.

AmritSorli if you agreed with that your idea is indistinguishable from the usual idea of time then your idea has noting to offer us. It adds nothing. Clearly YOU can't think of anything it adds since you have ignored the question several times now.

Why ever did you decide to bother me in the first place? I had not said one thing to you when you PMed me? That is another question you have ignored several times.

QC,The foundation which any social organization requires is a group narrative. Polytheistic societies were generally competing groups of people, owing allegiance to differing ideals, as well as recognized powerful outside forces. Those most focused on one deity proved far more political effective. There is a necessary tendency for such identifications to become increasingly hermetic and deny any reality that is not also centered around their deity. That such belief systems develop idiosyncrasies is not a bug, but a feature, as it separates true believers from those harboring doubts. The original form of crowd control, to get people pointed in and marching in the same direction. Remember that it was Constantine deciding that the cross made a very good war totem which transformed Christianity from a popular anti-authoritarian cult to an official state religion.

Hi common idea is time is physical, time is dimension of space.Our idea is time has only math status, time is a mathematical numerical order of change in space.

For me difference is essential, if you do not see difference here, fine for me. Yours Amrit

AmritSorli if you agreed with that your idea is indistinguishable from the usual idea of time then your idea has noting to offer us. It adds nothing. Clearly YOU can't think of anything it adds since you have ignored the question several times now.

Why ever did you decide to bother me in the first place? I had not said one thing to you when you PMed me? That is another question you have ignored several times.

in all experiments time t we measure with clocks is numerical mathematical order of change.....you do not need to care, feel free to think time is 4th dimension of space....tell me only one experimental data which proves time is 4th d of s

For me difference is essential, if you do not see difference here, fine for me.

Which testable predictions your interpretation of time provides? I.e. why we should care about it?

There is no space without time, as much as there is no time without space. Those two are inseparable, and represent not two, but ONE physical entity - which is being refferenced to as "space-time" by some.

When you travel through space, you also travel through time, and vice-versa. And as much as you can not travel a negative distance, you neither can travel "back" in time.

Everything in the Universe is in constant motion - there is no such thing as an "absolute standstill". Even though some of the outcomes of classic GR and using its maths might suggest otherwise - the problem is mostly not within the concept, but with its application. You have to treat space and time as one entity, and only then you can understand that the actual absolutes (zero/infinity) will actually never be reached. At least not within a sub-group of the absolute (the Universe).

And as such, I also have to jump on the boat which suggests that there is no separate entity "time". If, then only space-time.

The concept that time is merely measuring a numerical sequence of events, does nothing to explain time dilation.

As the speed of light constant is a fundamental property of spacetime, and clock rates are inextricably tied to the locally observed speed of light in a vacuum, time itself is a fundamental property of spacetime.

Otherwise, processes which change numerical sequences of events (like heating, or freezing), or even change the propagation speed of light (like through various materials), would have an effect on locally observed time.

I always thought time was assumed to be a physical dimension and always thought everyone else looked at it that way in modern physics. I ave stated as such to physicists without being corrected, so I do not understand what is new in this paper.

I always thought time was assumed to be a physical dimension... so I do not understand what is new in this paper.

Very simply, it doesn't matter whether time is a physical dimension or not. It wouldn't turn the world of physics upside town if it wasn't. Very very little in physics depends on time. Even though some equations use time, those equations don't depend on time; they could replace time with something else or rather more frequently make due without time at all. "Time is simply an illusion derived from motion. If nothing could move, there would be no time. Of course, human beings being creatures of evolution could argue time goes on even if there is no motion, but this is a contradiction for time implies change and without motion there can be no change. Therefore, time is simply the bi-product of change, and not an independent entity."

Correct. Geometry is what accounts for all differences from any entity to another entity. Whether they be objects, forces etc... Geometry is what makes unlimited creation possible. The universe is geometry. Never though of it that way, but it becomes more and more evident the more I contemplate about it.

Chiefly of interest in these findings, IMO, is the fact that some barriers to certain types of phenomena will be removed -a good example being the possibility of Quantum-entangled states being able to transmit information over large distances --instantaneously, in fact-- as the idea of FTL travel will cease to have any relevance as a fundamental impossibility. No time = no theoretical limit to velocity.

I'm sure there are plenty of other assumed impossibilities that will be possible with this new understanding, but that example came to mind first.

You need to exercise your imagination, for it is as good as a horrible reader unable to imply or properly understand a statement and insult others just for the sake of it.

How is my response to you an "insult?" Do you think everyone, who simply disagrees with your point of view, insults you? Really?

Arrogant much?

All I did was take your stated concept of time to the logical extreme. Is it my fault your own logic fails in the extreme? I think not.

And in reply to your derogatory PM:

"Anyone who thinks they're important is usually just a pompous moron who can't deal with his or her own pathetic insignificance and the fact that what they do is meaningless and inconsequential."- William Thomas

With spacetime, the aspect of space being considered is distance. Yes, any motion across distance requires duration, but another aspect of space is volume. We generally accept that space cannot exist without containing some amount of energy, so it would have to have a temperature. Such as the temperature of the CMBR at 3.7k. If you use ideal gas laws, temperature and volume are inversely proportional; Reduce the volume of a given amount of gas and the temperature rises proportionally. By the logic of spacetime, wouldn't temperature be another parameter of volume? Yet we don't talk about spacetemperature. Why not? Yes, they are fundamentally related, but we recognize there are differences. The reason we equate time with space is because we really don't understand time, so we equate it with motion through space. It defines our life, yet seems ethereal. The future is unknown and the past seems both objectively precise and subjectively fragmentary. Is it coming, or going?

Very very little in physics depends on time. Even though some equations use time, those equations don't depend on time; they could replace time with something else or rather more frequently make due without time at all.

I disagree. Even though many physics equations don't include time, it's almost always implied - as no physical process or interaction can occur without time.

Correction: The shape of the universe, at any given moment, is a question of geometry. However the processes of the universe, which are the forces and interactions which shape the universe, are time dependent.

Perhaps Amrit had de Sitter Space in the back of his mind.Conceivably after having read the following statement:

"Since the spacetime metric has no explicit time dependence, once an observer has crossed the cosmological horizon, observers closer in take its place. This ...process of ...an exponential expansion of spacetime."

"This steady-state exponentially expanding spacetime is called a de Sitter space, and to sustain it there must be a cosmological constant, a vacuum energy proportional to everywhere. In this case, the equation of state is p=-rho."

I already pointed out that this is an old argument, yet Amrit argues like he thought it up himself.

Generally, I agree with Ethelred's suggestion that this appears to be little more than and argument over semantics. However, if there is some particular value to thinking of time in this way, I'd certainly like to be made aware of it.

"FTL travel will cease to have any relevance as a fundamental impossibility. No time = no theoretical limit to velocity." - Whatever

You read but don't comprehend. The claim isn't that time doesn't "exist". The claim is that time doesn't "exist" as a physical dimension.

And of course, it doesn't.

Like temperature or entropy, the concept of "time" is an emergent characteristic of a bulk collection of objects.

The fact that time has an apparent geometric relationship with space is an artifact of analysis. It need not and does not have any real geometric interpretation. The apparent geometry of space time is a contrivance which may aid in the visualization of the relationship between space and the bulk property we call time, but simply because there is a mathematical relationship between space and time that is the same as a geometric one, this doesn't require that the relationship have any true physical manifestation.

@ubavontuba you missed the part where I said you didn't know how to read, and to comment without grasping the said concepts is rude and insulting. I don't even think your crasp the concept of time. Probably some old douche bag, who has nothing better to do then to post 10 000 comments about whatever comes to his head upon seeing 3 words.

Time is obviously an emergent property of a bulk, because without objects that change relative to each other, there is no concept of time. Time is always defined in terms of relative change. That is object A is seen to evolve relative to system B which is taken to evolve at a known rate. Hence a relative rate of change for A is implied.

There can be no time evolution to an empty universe.There can be no time evolution of a universe consisting of a single particle.

The same is true even for a universe consisting of 2 particles since time must be defined relative to an evolving system and there is only one system evolving and no observer available.

Time only has meaning in a universe of 3 or more particles and even then time evolution is curious.

Consider a 1 dimensional universe of three particles A,B and O (observer). Configure the universe so that it progresses from left to right as ABO. Define that as T=0Now allow the universe to be configured as BAO This is T=1

But suppose A and B are oscillating between AB and BA. Then O will see time evolving as 0,1,0,1,0,1. Time will shuttle back and forth, sometimes going backward.

As the number of particles in the universe increases, it becomes increasingly difficult for a system to evolve naturally into a state it acquired earlier. So with larger systems time seems to never return to an earlier state and hence never appears to go backward.

Time is in fact governed by the same statistical properties of entropy, and this is why the entropy of large bulks strongly tends to increase over time. It does so because time is ultimately defined by the bulk characteristics of the entire universe.

To an observer deemed "outside" the universe, time travel is possible. But only by re-arranging the entire content of the universe into a state it held earlier in "time".

If the observer is deemed "inside" the universe, then time travel is also possible by doing the same as above. But in this instance the observer must be part of that which is being re-arranged.

By doing so however, the observer loses all memory of it's regression in time, and hence can never "experience" time travel.

You may have gone back in time just a fraction of a second ago, but you would never know it because your memory of the present was erased as the universe reconfigured itself, and the universe includes your memory of the current state.

As to faster than light travel... That will never be possible because the objects are in large part comprised of electric fields, and since the propagation speed of electric fields has an upper limit of c then so does everything that is in part composed of an electric field.

On the other hand, I have seen no convincing argument preventing faster than light signaling, provided that those signals are not carried by an electric (electroweak) field.

Should physics manage to unify all fields into one, then it is likely (but not required) that there will be a common propagation speed limit to all of it's derivative components.

Numerical order of material change is the only way we observer experience time. I don`t support this idea because the same argument holds for space. Indeed, will space free of particles and radiations be a 3 dimensions space ?

A proper definition of time shouldn't have motion in it.

Since we observer can only experience time through motion:

For an observer observer, time is a derived from position change; dt = dx/v

For an observed ( a clock) space is derived from time change dx = vdt.

Which kind of experiment/observation could disprove the fundamental existence of time?

Think of the moment just past that you spent reading the quote above. Think of the moment you are in, as you read this, and think of the moment about to transpire as you read further. It is not abstract -- we speak of "one minute ago" and "one minute from now" as if they are real physcial dimensions of flowing time. Moments we can't go back to or can't yet have, even though separated from them by miliseconds. But try to pinpoint the very instant when the future flows through the present and becomes the past in your reading of this paragraph. You can't do it. Science can't do it. Yet you will agree that this is a linear sequence of words with a beginning and an end. We succumb to the illusion that the reading of the final word in this paragraph is still in the future, and that the reading of the first word in the paragraph is now in the past.

It was my understanding that time travel into the future is real and has been experimentally verified.

This is the notion that an astronaut traveling near the speed of light would age more slowly than those at rest on earth -- proven by experiment with atomic clocks on spacecraft. But it's one-way, and not really "travel."

Back-and-forth travel to the future is impossible, because there's no "future" to travel to. By whatever means, slowing down the aging process just allows one to stay young longer in the present -- the same present in which others age more rapidly. This already happens with the disease progeria, in which the aging process is accelerated. If you met a progeria-stricken child when he was one year old and only saw him again when he was eight but had aged to eighty, would you say you'd traveled to the future? How would this be any different than when a spacetime traveler returns to earth after fifty years to find he's still young and his son is an old man?

you can travel in space only and time is a mathematical numerical order of your motion, clocks "tick" in space only, not in time, see my videohttp://www.youtub...QBG2eouQ

It was my understanding that time travel into the future is real and has been experimentally verified.

This is the notion that an astronaut traveling near the speed of light would age more slowly than those at rest on earth -- proven by experiment with atomic clocks on spacecraft. But it's one-way, and not really "travel."

Back-and-forth travel to the future is impossible, because there's no "future" to travel to. By whatever means, slowing down the aging process just allows one to stay young longer in the present -- the same present in which others age more rapidly.

Our idea is time has only math status, time is a mathematical numerical order of change in space.

A numerical order of change that fits the physical laws of our universe is ((indistinguishable) (from)) time.

Those two statements are YOURS and CONTRADICTORY. It cannot have math status if it cannot be distinguished from the normal mathematics via mathematics. Indeed in that case it does NOT have a math status. It is just philosophy.

Again, I suspect that time IS just an ordered series of events. BUT I don't claim it is mathematically profound since it clearly cannot be so if it isn't falsifiable. I KNOW its just philosophy. Either you can't see that or you refuse to acknowledge it.

Here are those questions you are still evading.

Why ever did you decide to bother me in the first place? I had not said one thing to you when you PMed me?

Fourth time for that.

What do you think this adds to human knowledge? Especially since it isn't falsifiable.

inside Planck volume lp3 there is no change, no motion, no time as numerical order of change or motion, space we live in is made our of Planck volumes QS.....motion does not happen in time, time is numerical order of motion, we have to surpass this old mental form "change requires time", see our articles in Physics Essays - AIP.by gravity there is no time, by EPR there is no time, this immediate phenomena are carried directly by quantum vacuum

d = v x t (t is numerical order of motion)

Numerical order of material change is the only way we observer experience time. I don`t support this idea because the same argument holds for space. Indeed, will space free of particles and radiations be a 3 dimensions space ?

A proper definition of time shouldn't have motion in it.

Since we observer can only experience time through motion:

For an observer observer, time is a derived from position change; dt = dx/v

For an observed ( a clock) space is derived from time change dx = vdt.

I liked the article, I think it can explain certain things with greater clarity. For example, as one's speed approaches C, their relative time slows to a point where it is almost "stopped". Thinking of this as travelling in 4D space with time being the order in which position changes makes sense to me.

No. No matter how many times you see someone us KG in a force calculation they aren't doing right.

Everything we know about the Universe is just MATH which covers far more than just geometry. Which is why you don't made those other errors. Math can and does include all things you said are abstractions. And much more.

you can travel in space only and time is a mathematical numerical order of your motion,

It looks like you're essentially saying your motion sets the clock rate, without regard to time dilation and reference frames.

If motion alone represents time, why do different observers observe different clock rates, when observing the same set of numerical sequences? Is it magic?

The problem in understanding time here is, it's not your motion which sets the clock rate, but rather it is the speed of light relative to your frame of reference which sets the clock rate. Do you see? Time is about the spacetime around you, not numerical sequences of change, per se.

clocks "tick" in space only, not in time,

The rate at which the clock "ticks" is controlled by the surrounding spacetime. Therefore, they tick in spacetime.

It is unlikely that there is a INSIDE of a Planck volume. There are good reasons for thinking of a single Planck AnyDimension as the minimum possible quantity of the dimension.

motion does not happen in time, time is numerical order of motion,

'time does not happen via motion, motion is according to the numerical order of time'

There is no evidence supporting the first except that you claim it is that way. That latter fits the math that actually works and make more sense when dealing with time dilation in SR or GR. Thus again there is nothing in your view of things that increases our understanding.

inside Planck volume lp3 there is no change, no motion, no time as numerical order of change or motion, space we live in is made our of Planck volumes QS

Talking about the "inside" of Planck volume is not scientific as the existence of this "inside" is not falsifiable. Nor is any _physical_ meaning of Planck units.

Like temperature or entropy, the concept of "time" is an emergent characteristic of a bulk collection of objects.

The word "emergent" implies a flow of time. The recursive constructs of certain programming languages are spoiling clear thinking. There is no true recursive programming because every stack is finite.

By the logic of spacetime, wouldn't temperature be another parameter of volume? Yet we don't talk about spacetemperature. Why not?

Because we can handle temperatures in manifold ways. We can lower or raise temperature in certain regions of space; we can even program the temperature behavior of material objects. But we can't do so with time.

The only reason there is any confusion as to the nature of time is that we tend to view it as the present moving from past to future in a linear fashion. Which does make it seem similar to space. Note the use of lightspeed is to convert distance and duration. If we view the present as the constant and it is the changing configuration of this physical reality which causes future potential to coalesce into current form and then be replaced by continuous change, it is a non-linear process, much like temperature is a non-linear scale. The vector of time is effect, not cause.On the other hand, what is space? If you had a single object and no external reference, presumably spin would still be apparent, because it would exert centrifugal force. Space would seem to be an equilibrium state and that might be the reason for the consistancy of light.

If physics were only about mathematics then all of physics would be known.

Although mathematics is only about mathematics we can't claim that all of mathematics is known.Worse: With the help of mathematics it has been proven that it is impossible to know all of mathematics.There is unphysical mathematics (see: Banach-Tarski paradox) but there is no physics which can not be modelled by mathematics. The main difficulty is to find the proper model among the inestimable many models.

"The word "emergent" implies a flow of time. The recursive constructs of certain programming languages are spoiling clear thinking. There is no true recursive programming because every stack is finite." - fraio

No. Green is an emergent color when one mixes blue and yellow.What is blue and yellow splotches up close becomes uniform green when viewed from a distance.

Time is not implied here.

And even if time were implied, it would be a failing of the English language rather than a failure of concept.

"Because we can handle temperatures in manifold ways. We can lower or raise temperature in certain regions of space; we can even program the temperature behavior of material objects. But we can't do so with time." - fraio

Actually we can manipulate time for isolated systems in an exactly analogous manner. by simply returning a sample to the state it was in before now. The universe has moved forward in time, but taken in isolation from the universe, the sample has moved back in time.

"Although mathematics is only about mathematics we can't claim that all of mathematics is known." - fraio

You have missed the intended meaning, so let me restate....

If physics were just mathematics than the only mysteries of physics that remain would be reduced to the remaining mysteries of algebra, which, while they are interesting in themselves, are mostly devoid of any connection with physical reality.

If physics was just about math, then there would be no new physics just as there is no new algebra.

Nope. With only a single particle there is no external reference with which to judge orientation.If you have two particles then you can judge spin. but only 2 spatial dimensions.

If I was on an astroid in intergalactic space, then the only way to tell if it was spinning was by observing galaxies in the far distance? What if I was blind, then would I be safe, but if I could see, I would be spun off?

Vendicar: Your remarks about magnetism are intriguing, care to point me to an article or other reference on that?

AmritSorli: Your theory implies that the independent variable "t" can be eliminated from all equations in physics. Can you do that for at least enough of them that my fellow engineers will find them useful? If you wind up having a "t-like" variable then it's just a different metaphysical interpretation (and each of us is entitled to have his own, as it's not the realm of physics).

When mixing pastels, sure. But in reality, green is a real part of the spectrum and is a primary color (used in CRT's and projection equipment). So your perception of green in pastels is an emergent perception only. It doesn't make green any less real.

Actually we can manipulate time for isolated systems in an exactly analogous manner. by simply returning a sample to the state it was in before now. The universe has moved forward in time, but taken in isolation from the universe, the sample has moved back in time.

No, this would be an example of, well, change.

The information regarding the changes has moved on to other sources, but it exists, nonetheless.

Lol, at a young age I remember arguing with an art teacher about green being a primary color, and she eventually got angry with me over it. I could understand not wanting to confuse the other students with two sets of information, but she must not have known herself or she could have just pulled me aside and said "yeah you are right, but we are using these colors for these reasons." Lots of bitter memories like that from my school years.

not at all: in every equation of physics time t is exactly numerical order of material change, i.e. motion in a observed and measured physical phenomena, by gravity there is no numerical order (no time), gravity is carried directly by quantum space, because of this there is no symbol t in the formalism: Fg = ((m 1 x m2) x G)) x r on square

Vendicar: Your remarks about magnetism are intriguing, care to point me to an article or other reference on that?

AmritSorli: Your theory implies that the independent variable "t" can be eliminated from all equations in physics. Can you do that for at least enough of them that my fellow engineers will find them useful? If you wind up having a "t-like" variable then it's just a different metaphysical interpretation (and each of us is entitled to have his own, as it's not the realm of physics).

Almost everything said about color has been wrong. Red or Green? Wiki Qualia. The brain calculates the color from the sensory signals from the eyes. This is essentially a calculation of the color and not just a response to a specific wavelength.

For example, notice how film records light changes with great difficulty when going from indoor light to outdoor light. The eye adjusts for all of this on the fly and we see persistent shades of color even in changing lighting.

While typically a human eye has sets of three cones with different sensitivities, some people have four and are capable of making more subtle distinctions. (wiki Eye)

Further there is research which shows that color perception is also affected by language.

In terms of "mixing" colors almost any three colors properly separated (generally equally) on the color wheel can be adjusted to produce white and the intermediate color mixes.

"If I was on an astroid in intergalactic space, then the only way to tell if it was spinning was by observing galaxies in the far distance? What if I was blind, then would I be safe, but if I could see, I would be spun off?" - brodix

Your question is one that has been first accredited to Mach. You have been imprecise in it's asking however.

Observation includes more than just seeing. An observation is any interaction you can have with another object or system.

I may not see an electron, but I can experience it's charge. That is an observation.

Similarly, I may not see a remote galaxy but if I feel it's gravitational tug, or if photons from it strike the back of my head, then that is also an observation.

Now, if I am isolated from the rest of the universe in such a way that there is no outside influence on me at all, then such an environment should be identical to a situation where I am alone in an empty universe.

Would I fly off, or would I conclude that the laws of physics are different?

I would conclude that the laws of physics are different. But through experimentation - by making my own distant galaxies, I could derive a simplified mathematical model in which it was I were spinning.

But that model would be as perceptually unreal to me as the effects of GR are to me now.

"Lol, at a young age I remember arguing with an art teacher about green being a primary color"

Isn't it interesting how a linear arrangement of frequency is perceptually converted into a 3 dimensional volume - a color cube - simply by having different sensors sensitive to different ranges of frequency.

The best way to understand time is to think of it as a "Ruler". Time is simply the measurement of change. just as inches are a measurement of length. Neither time nor inches exist as dimensions, they only exist as tools for us to apply to bring understanding to something that is dimensional. Thats why I believe time travel is impossible.. We can only effect the rate of change we are in, not time itself.. and the closest way to connect with the past is to put yourself closest to the point of occurrence. So while time travel is impossible, with all the technology we have now, we are connecting ourselves to current events faster. Which in essence will be as close to past time travel as we are ever going to get..

But that model would be as perceptually unreal to me as the effects of GR are to me now.

Vendicar, Much of current cosmology is based on the assumption that the four dimensional fabric of spacetime is as real as those giant cosmic gear wheels of epicycles were assumed to be. Once you propose that it is simply a mathematical model and time is not a real fourth dimension, then the whole Big Bang/Inflationary cosmology concept evaporates, because space has no physical manifestation and so cannot be warped, bent, bounded, etc.Consider that while this expanding universe is based on the redshift of light and the assumption that the only cause can be recession of the source, this raised an initial problem, because if it is essentially an expansion in three dimensional space, we would appear to be at the center of the universe. So it was amended to say that space itself expands multidimensionally and every point appears to be the center.

The problem is that the speed of light is stable. This means the space it crosses is stable. Redshift could very logically be an effect of distance, since it is mostly proportional to distance.Inflation and Dark energy are enormous patches proposed to explain discrepancies between theory and observation. These observations could easily be explained by various aspects of a stable universe, in which the facets of collapsing mass and expanding energy make up a cosmic convection cycle. One of the main evidentiary proofs of Big Bang theory was the discovery of Background radiation, combined with the prediction that it would exist as residue from the singularity. Yet if light travels so far it falls off the visible scale, then it would register as this black body radiation. So instead of an initial effect of the Big Bang, it would be the final effect of some form of "tired light."

This then goes to the nature of light and whether photons are irreducible units, or the smallest measureable quantity of light; that which will bounce an electron to a higher orbit. Not to start arguments with convention, but I suspect many of the current assumptions are a patchwork that are not going to stand up to a lot of further evidence. The oldest observed galaxy is at 13.2 billion lightyears and that means something that large had to coalesce in just 500 million years. Given it takes our own galaxy 225 million years to make one revolution, that is a very short amount of time and will eventually seem as likely as a 6 thousand year old earth seems today.

"Isn't it interesting how a linear arrangement of frequency is perceptually converted into a 3 dimensional volume"

Actually a 3D point. The original wave is a linear combination of an infinite number of frequencies, our eyes just sample 3 of them - it's a compact representation :)

"t can always be replaced by d/c for a reference light beam."

Surely you can't just make that substitution. These "d" and "t" are different, independent quantities. You can't just specify one as a function of the other, you need those 2 degrees of freedom.

"not at all: in every equation of physics time t is exactly numerical order of material change"

In that case, Ethelred was right and time versus change is just semantics. Of course the same concept can be interpreted in multiple ways. A wave can be interpreted in time or frequency, as above. It doesn't make sense to say one is truer than the other.

@GRSmall Excursion: Color.I was born on Mars. My parents were born on earth. We live on Mars right now. I have not been to earth yet.

My parents tell me:When you visit earth, you will see color in a new light.Due to the differences in atmospheres. Do not fret.The wavelengths remain the same. And your perception will adapt. As well as your vocabulary.

:)

Back to the article. "There are a lot of clocks""There are a lot of numerical orders"@AmritDo the quotes display equivalence for you?

So you're yet another Zephyr clone<\q> Pretty sure that is an Electric Universe crank, not aether boy.

I think it all comes back to CTCs and nobody wants to play with me. I am so disappointed. Tired light guy, brodix, almost went where I wanted, but got sidetracked by his strange twist on reality. Time can't be just the numerical order of change if a Godel universe can exist. A Godel universe can exist in GR so either this is all bunk or GR is wrong and needs fixing.

It ain't semantics. Using this way of thinking distracts from thinking about spacetime properly.

Okay. I see. You're not talking about a numerical (implied: causal) sequence of events, like those described in the article (e.g. "the motion of an object and the tick of a clock"). Your talking about two unrelated events concerning simultaneity in relativity.

Interestingly you can also use this effect to put a light year long pole into a 1 cm deep box. and even close the door behind it when it is inside.

Sure, the old ladder paradox. Again, this is unrelated to the claims of the article.

As a result light passing through a gravitational field experiences more quantum scattering and hence takes longerto traverse a void.

Since we define c as being a constant we conclude that the longer traversal time implies more space. So we conclude that there is more space the closer we get to a gravitating object, and that space is "warped" around that object.

It's possible to think that physical phenomena associated to materials bodies are dominated by time, as the fourth dimension of space (4D).But the human perception of time, allows us to perceive the time as a dimension independent 3D + t. In some subjects the perception of past events, or sequences of past events and, sometimes, of the future, is just as "alive".Since human perception dipeded to the senses, what is the sense enabled to perceive the time? Or what kind of mental processing allows us to "feel" the past in the present, or the future in the present, or the present like past?

"And for laughs, stating "a region of space that is less spatially dense" ...is such a ridiculous oxymoron, I was momentarily stunned with incredulity." - Ubavon

I don't think that a complete description can fit in 1000 characters.

Less spatially dense relative to a uniform grid imposed on space from a sufficient distance away such that space can be presumed to be flat.

Rulers contract when moved into stronger gravitational fields. This clearly shows that the stronger a gravitational field, the more space and more vacuum energy there is associated with it.

In reality, this additional space is a result of the larger transit time through a region due to the higher vacuum energy.

The additional vacuum energy is the self energy of the gravitational field.

Gravitational fields are attractive because there is more space below an object than above, hence quantum mechanical fluctuations in the objects position have a higher probability of occurring below than above.

presence of mass in a given volume of quantum vacuum increases its density that is in GR defined as curvature, increased density of quantum vacuum generates gravity, existence of GW is under question: 5. A. Loinger (2000), Non-existence of radiation damping of gravitational waves http://arxiv.org/...3230.pdf

While typically a human eye has sets of three cones with different sensitivities, some people have four and are capable of making more subtle distinctions. (wiki Eye)

This is called tetrachromacy and is present in most birds. Human tetrachromacy is a theoretical possibility only, has been claimed for some people, but is as yet not confirmed. (Wikipedia "tetrachromacy".)

Then again there is a video of Dr. Feynman getting annoyed about a question of WHY there is magnetism and he was annoyed because he thought it is a property of the Universe and there no way to know the why of those properties. They simply are.

Since he was the creator of quantum electro-dynamics I have to suspect that magnetism may be a real force and not a fictitious force like centrifugal force.

Sometimes looking at fictitious forces and comparing them to what are considered real forces like gravity leads to a deeper understanding. Which is why I am saying that gravity itself is a fictitious force. I am beginning to wonder about electromagnetism as well. Which has lead me to suspect that ALL forces can be seen as fictitious when looked at in new ways.

Actually green is in the spectrum as well as by mixing blue and yellow. It is a result of the cones in our eyes and the way the information is processed in the brain that causes a pure frequency between that of blue and yellow to look the same as the mixture of the two frequencies of blue and yellow. Now PURPLE is really weird.

I think I went a bit off on a tangent there. Color is a result of processing the brain. Which implies time as the chemical reactions involved do take place over time with many steps being dependent on the result of previous steps. Which means you need another example as that one DOES require time.

For that matter you efforts to make time go away has required time.

Actually we can manipulate time for isolated systems in an exactly analogous manner. by simply returning a sample to the state it was in before now

Would you like to do that for Humpty Dumpty? I will be really impressed.

If physics were just mathematics than the only mysteries of physics that remain would be reduced to the remaining mysteries of algebra,

You missed HIS meaning not the other way around. Physics IS just mathematics AND experimentation to find out WHICH parts of math apply to this Universe.

If physics was just about math, then there would be no new physics just as there is no new algebra.

Oh dear. There is new algebra discovered fairly frequently. The catch is that mathematics can often go down more than path. And the Universe can only function in one of those ways. That is part of what experiment is for. The other part is to find out the quantities of the constants and variables.

No one has EVER discovered ANYTHING in physics that is not covered by math. LOTS of math has been discovered that does not apply to our Universe.

@Vendicar. If you talk about memory, talk of something inherent a faculty of the human mind.And then, of human "perception" of time.Mathematical formulas do not express the memory, so why the arrow of time must necessarily point to the future? Having a forward direction? Are these categories of space? Front, rear, before and after they become? In this case we consider time as a fourth dimension of space?

I did not understand well the speech on the increase of entropy as the origin of the three time dimensions.

How Algebra is applied to the physical world isn't an algebra problem. It is a physics problem.

No. Its BOTH. It is a math problem to discover math that is valid and experimentation problem to find out if it really works in our Universe.

ExampleNewtonian Gravity IS mathematically valid. So is Einsteins. Experimentation shows that Einsteins is right.String theory is NOT mathematically valid YET. Some parts are so bloody complex that thirty years of effort has not yet finished the math. So no experiment can test it yet even if there wasn't that 10 to 500th possible string theories problem.

Vendicar, we write in this discussion in space only and time is numerical order of letters appearing first letter has number 1, last letter number n, arrow it time of our writing does not point into any direction....it has exclusively math value. I'm not expert for gravity, but I see gravity as a result of density of quantum vacuum, no GW are needed to explain gravity, diminishing of orbital velocity of neutron stars might be caused by diminishing of mass of stars - mass transforms back into elementary particles of quantum vacuum...a thesis for now, we work on it....

I need to make a correction....

Gravitation manufactures space. Gravitational red shifts are caused by the expansion of a wavefront into a region of space that is more spatially dense so to speak than the space from which it came.

Hush1,No, I'm not the author. It was a link pointed out to me in the discussion threads in the recent FQXi contest. Here is a another version that expands on it slightly:http://www.fqxi.o...hift.pdfPyle,"Tired Light was not the most popular term. The reason It appeals to me is that there doesn't seem to be much accounting for dispersion of the wave, with particle theories of light. I realize I'm hitting my head on a brick wall with this at the moment, but with the various experiments, especially the James Webb telescope, coming on line over the next decade, I think it is only a matter of time before they start finding evidence of galaxies, hiding in the background radiation, that are simply too far and old to be explained within a 13.7 billion year old universe and the whole issue is going to have to be reopened.

No. An alternate explanation would be the contraction of the observer.

Gravity does contract "space," yet space expands between gravity fields and the combined effect is neutral, ie. overall, space is flat. Currently this is being explained by Inflation blowing the universe up so large that its overall curvature isn't apparent, but a cosmic convection cycle would explain this relationship far more efficiently. Recently Paul Steinhardt, one of the developers of Inflation, raised serious questions about it creating more problems than it solves, in a cover story in SciAm.

The value of c is defined as a constant. Hence any change in c is attributed to a result of a change in d and/or a change in t.

If the universe expanded from a point, then why is the speed of light constant? The Doppler effect isn't about expanding space, but increasing distance. The train moving away doesn't create space, but moves through it. Same for galaxies: If they were x lightyears apart and then they are 2x lightyears apart, that is not expanding space, just increasing distance in stable space. Geometry assumes zero is the center point, but logically it is the empty page. A point is one, whether it's in the center, or anywhere else on the page. Moving the points around doesn't create the space, just defines it.

That is obfuscation. T is still there hidden by simply not using the dimensions in C.

d/c = Distance/300,000 Meters PER SECOND.

Does anyone know who is pretending to be Vendicar? This is just not him. Not once has he called anyone a Tard. Nor attacked the US of A as a degenerate nation. There is no way that this is the Canadian with the bad attitude that uses the handle Vendicar.

Someone has captured Vendicar and stolen his password. The Prime Minister must be informed. The Mounties must be called out.

As far as Nature is concerned, all of Nature can be defined by the way it distributes energy introduced to it.

Of course energy is timeless. The distribution (of energy) is the "shape" (or "structure") you call memory. Or perception. Or Mind. Or Math. Or Time. Or Space. Or Event. Or literally everything.

The only limits to the ways of distributing energy are the limits you impose upon yourself. And the most important limit facing everyone today are our languages - used to describe Nature.

99% of what we read, write or say, are descriptions, not definitions or rules. You want to know the origin of all our 7000 languages? That all started with perceptions. Our senses, the origin of our jump start cognitive supremacy over other evolutionary forms of life.

Ethelred is not alone. The name change has to be a rose. Putting aesthetics aside.

"Then again there is a video of Dr. Feynman getting annoyed about a question of WHY there is magnetism and he was annoyed because he thought it is a property of the Universe and there no way to know the why of those properties." - Ethelred

I haven't seen that video, but so many of them have been pulled from circulation over the last couple of years so that access to them can be sold.

Feynman knew full well that all magnetism with the possible exception of quantum spin moments are the result of relativistic electrostatics.

Spin is a special case since electrons seem to spin, but have no internal structure to support spin. Hence their magnetic field would appear to be fundamental.

I suspect however that their spin is really due to an unequal flow of virtual particles around the charge imbalance. Such a flow is probably required to keep the charge imbalance from disapating.

"Which is why I am saying that gravity itself is a fictitious force." - Ethelred

"Gravitational fields" are attributable to the local change in vacuum energy density. Higher density equates to a slower transit of light, and therefore an an apparent compaction of objects, an increase in space, a slowing of the flow of time, and as a result of the reduction of local entropy, the opportunity for local objects to increase the entropy by diffusing along the density gradient.

Thank you for your attention you give to an amateur like me.If I can, I'll still reflect with you.@ Hush1. Certainly the problem of language to describe the nature and human events is a big problem. Just read Wittgenstien, to name one.But if the energy is timeless, while the distribution of energy is "form", or structure, Levi-Strauss docet., in a sense, it is as if there is a jump from "Being" to "existence"(event )? From non-being to being? From time to time-not?

@ Vendicar. The difference between the shape of human memory and that of a RAM? Maybe it's the difference between memory and storage. A RAM stores, can not remember, the human mind stores and recalls at memory. The act of remembering seems to have an extra step, it is said that to remember is to report to memory (in the present) the past and not only what is stored. In RAM there is no past, there are only data.

I allways thought the fabric of space was 2 dimentinal, and that the third dimention and mass was an expression of the outside containment of these bits of 2d space. I also think that the cosmilogical constant lies in these little bits of 2d spacefabrick. and mass of an object is a mesure of its interferance with this constant. Tiny little dognuts that surfaces constantly ossliating that is 2d on the inside, but 3d on the outside

Time is merely the sequence. A clock creates a reliable, repetitive event system with which to compare the sequence of other events. One cannot perfectly synchronize different clock frames because they are both creating their own references. It has nothing to do with space. It isn't really all that complicated when you stop trying to explain how everything came from nothing over time. Order comes from randomness, not nothing. Order occurs randomly. That it does so over time is a simple cause-effect relationship. Stop trying to divide by zero: there's nothing there to divide with.

this shift in paradigm from time as a dimension of space to time as a numerical order of change in space opens new understanding of the universe: universe does not run in time, time run in the universe as numerical order of its change. In the universe past and future exist merely as a numerical order of change....this is the vision of Einstein and Godel...."world without time", see book of Yourgrau....

Ethelred is not alone. The name change has to be a rose. Putting aesthetics aside.

If you view the present as moving from past to future, time is a vector, similar to direction in space, but if you view the present as a dynamic state, in which potential coalesces into actual and it is the events which move "through" this present, from future to past, then it is a thermal medium and duration/rate of change, is relative to the processes enabling that change. Because we can only exist in the present, our senses record the series of events, but then our senses also still see the sun as moving across the sky and our bio-rhythms are still very tuned to that. The problem was developing a physical explanation for the sun's movement, much as developing a physical explanation for the present moving along the path of history is proving difficult to explain physically.

this is the vision of Einstein and Godel...."world without time", see book of Yourgrau

Not so much. This is the vision of the intuitive (apparently held by Einstein and Godel). Intuitive doesn't hold much water in our current understanding of relativity and quantum mechanics. I am not saying I disagree, but Godel's solution to the EFE needs to be addressed if your idea that time is only numerical order of change can hold any water.

You keep saying "opens new understanding" and the like, but as Ethelred keeps asking: HOW? GR operates in spacetime, just because you chose to call a dimension not a dimension doesn't mean you are changing anything. Your semantic battle with Zeno is just babble. Maybe useful for a philo, but of no value to physics from what you have displayed here.

Recalling from Sorli's definition of time, the universe is made of infinite number of clocks, they are not synchronized, infinite, non identical number of possible configuration. An YES, there is a Past, a Present and a Future in this model.

If you uphold the two assertions/assumptions that energy is timeless and infinite in form, you need a construct/concept/tool/description, that meets and provides the sum of our data, information, experience, knowledge and existence.

Worst still, once that sum is successfully provided and described, we expect that sum to render our understanding of time as obsolete. The sum has to predict, as well as, repeat 'something' that is timeless and infinite in form.

The tool 'Spacetime' falls shorts in describing and providing the 'sum' described above.

The tool 'Numerical order of change in space' is like metaphorically looking at twins when regarding both tools. I am not the Mother. I can not tell them apart. You can. And assert this tool provides and describes the 'sum' described above.

Isn't this why we invent new meaning? Even for words that already exist? What are we manipulating? In virtual reality?You say order. Others say time. And enjoy playing.In a timeless world.

If the inanimate matter is so animate matter, because they both can be reduced to the energy ... how the time "influence" on one and on the other? The time that "lives" a stone has no past, present, future. The stone "is" in certain states, one different on the other, without a before and after.It is the animated matter (and in particular the human mind understood as self-conscience, to do exist time in the three dimensions (past-present-future).But if time was relative only to the "conscience", would be possible to write a mathematical analysis of the matter without the time element?

The speed of light isn't constant. It varies with the energy density of the space it travels through.

Next, you'll tell us about "zero point weather" - as energy invariably flows from higher to lower potentials! (sarcasm)

I expect that c goes to 0 as t goes to 0.

Wow. You obviously don't understand time dilation. Time and the speed of light are inextricably linked. No observer can ever see the speed of light in a vacuum change. However, distant observers can see a similar effect caused by time dilation. It's why black holes have the nickname, "frozen stars."

"Oppenheimer and his co-authors interpreted the singularity at the boundary of the Schwarzschild radius as indicating that this was the boundary of a bubble in which time stopped. This is a valid point of view for external observers, but not for infalling observers. Because of this property, the collapsed stars were called 'frozen stars,'"

Thank you very much Hush1!I'm going to read these authors, because I'm convinced that the time (in three dimensions, as perceived by the human mind) is inherent to conscience, but since the matter exists independently of the conscience, it must be possible to describe and mathematized it, independently to that is specific of the human being, ie its capacity to reflect, to be thought of thought.If it is true that the universe is written in the language of mathematics, this language existed before human being and will exist even after the human being.

time is a mathematical entity that exists independent of the human mind....it is part of the universe, universe itself has integrated mathematics in its very core....human mind just absorb math from the universe....relative is velocity of material change. "relativity" starts with massive particles, time cannot be "relative" because it has only mathematical character, see our coming article in Physics Essaysyours amrit

If the inanimate matter is so animate matter, because they both can be reduced to the energy ... how the time "influence" on one and on the other? The time that "lives" a stone has no past, present, future. The stone "is" in certain states, one different on the other, without a before and after.

But if time was relative only to the "conscience", would be possible to write a mathematical analysis of the matter without the time element?

Nice to read you, Sorli."It is convenient to replace the concept of time with the numerical order of material change".I agree with the authors. In fact, we should also change the language (as we said yesterday) and no longer use the term time, but rather "change space" or numerical order or other terms.This will avoid confusion.

It 'also true that we have centuries of metaphysical conception of time almost as a being in itself, as a thing, as a dimension in addition to other dimensions.Even Kant, who was not a metaphysician, approached the space and time and consider these two factors as a-priori concepts.While time isn't a dimension in addition to other dimension, but a mode of expression of other dimensions.Or not?

time is a mathematical entity that exists independent of the human mind....it is part of the universe, universe itself has integrated mathematics in its very core....human mind just absorb math from the universe....relative is velocity of material change. "relativity" starts with massive particles, time cannot be "relative" because it has only mathematical character

I would like to make a simple argumentIn the macro as in micro systems, that we observe is the information, not the object. If the information is light, ie a certain frequency, this will take some time to cover a certain space, the distance between the object and the observer. So it is only when the distance is 0, that space is 0, the velocity is 0, that the observer is "in front of the object, ie the object corresponds to information.In all cases where the distance between the observer and the object is greater than 0, we are in front at an information and not an object. At this point we can only classify the information.Later, when we encounter an "object", ie when the distance is 0, and this object gives us a particular piece of information, we can search this information in to our "database" of information previously gathered by observing the information given by other objects,. If there is, its means that we have already seen something like that.The problem is: how do we know

In the macro as in micro systems, that we observe is the information, not the object. If the information is light, ie a certain frequency, this will take some time to cover a certain space, the distance between the object and the observer. So it is only when the distance is 0, that space is 0, the velocity is 0, that the observer is "in front of the object, ie the object corresponds to information.In all cases where the distance between the observer and the object is greater than 0, we are in front at an information and not an object. At this point we can only classify the information.Later, when we encounter an "object", ie when the distance is 0, and this object gives us a particular piece of information, we can search this information in to our "database" of information previously gathered by observing the information given by other objects,. If there is, its means that we have already seen something like that.The problem is: how do we kn

Elisan,Energy and information are two sides of the same coin. Energy manifests information and information defines energy. Since the energy is conserved, as new information is created, old information is erased. When we are observing something at a distance, we are receiving the information carrying energy and interpreting it according to the patterns manifested in our mind. As for time, the energy goes from prior information configurations to succeeding ones, while the information becomes manifest and then is replaced. So energy goes past to future, while information goes future to past.To the extent our brains are physically manifest, they proceed from past events to future ones. Our minds are a succession of thoughts, which coalesce out of received information and then evolve into, or are replaced by the next thought, depending on our level of concentration. So the brain goes past to future, while the thoughts go from being in the future to being in the past.

In the macro as in micro systems, that we observe is the information, not the object. If the information is light, ie a certain frequency, this will take some time to cover a certain space, the distance between the object and the observer. So it is only when the distance is 0, that space is 0, the velocity is 0, that the observer is "in front of the object, ie the object corresponds to information.In all cases where the distance between the observer and the object is greater than 0, we are in front at an information and not an object. At this point we can only classify the information.Later, when we encounter an "object", ie when the distance is 0, and this object gives us a particular piece of information, we can search this information in to our "database" of information previously gathered by observing the information given by other objects,. If there is, its means that we have already seen something like that.

You need proof-of-concept. That's how science works, and changes the way humans use language and think.

I can change 7 billion people's way of language and thinking.In one day.

I invent the wheel. I build the fission and/or fusion bomb. I build and create the first synthetic life form from organic/inorganic chemicals.I create and build cold fusion reactors. You get the idea.

I am not going to claim anything, until every one can repeat my experiment.

Tweaking one word and it's meaning in all the human languages (math included) falls short of this.

Please read Physorg's article:Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time. With the recommended reading I express a very high, extremely high personal bias. The "software" of all science.

In the macro as in micro system, that we observe, is the information, not the object. If the information is light, ie a certain frequency,this will take some time to cover a certain space, the distance between the object anche the observer. So, it is only when the distance is 0, that space is 0,, the velocity is 0, than the observer is in front of the object, ie the object corresponds to information.In all cases, when the distance between the observer and the object is greater than 0, we are in front to an information, not to an object. At this point we can only classify the information previously gathered by observing the information given by other objects,. If there is, its means that we have already seen something like that.

No. The Axiom of Choice is not absorbed from the universe. The Banach-Tarski paradox is not absorbed from the universe. Where mathematics deals with infinities, physical entities (like the universe) are surpassed.

The problem is: how do we know if we are faced with an object or an information? We have said that information is the "light", ie a frequency that is energy.But if E = mc (2) and if it is true, as I said before, we can say to be in front to an object when the distance is 0, so when speed is 0, ie the "light" (the "frequency ", information) of that object is 0, than we will have mx0= 0. How to say, it is only when we are faced with something cold and dark we are faced with an object. In all other cases we have in front of information only.

But if time was relative only to the "conscience", would be possible to write a mathematical analysis of the matter without the time element?

There is no reason excpept for personal ego to assume that the Universe cares about consciousness. And consciousness exists IN time so you can't have it without time.

This is exactly what the authors Amrit Sorli, Davide Fiscaletti, and Dusan Klinar are attempting to do.

Looks that way but considering Amrit's total inability to answer any question except to repeat the things questioned puts HIS consciousness into question. And in any case nothing in the mathematics nor in the concept of time as an ordered series of events requires consciousness.

No. The Axiom of Choice is not absorbed from the universe. The Banach-Tarski paradox is not absorbed from the universe. Where mathematics deals with infinities, physical entities (like the universe) are surpassed.

My modest universe is Classical and Quantum Information TheoryWhere angels fear to tread, Elisan dares to go.Letting time go will be another source nostalgia.Of course without time nostalgia will be an object of the past.And, of course, that statement is a paradox as well.

When combined with the elevator analogy and the principle of equivalence it becomes rather clear tht gravity is not a force in the standard sense of the word. Even the topology idea becomes hard to accept. The catch is I can't figure out how to use topology for both gravity and acceleration even though they are indistinguishable or rather because they are.

I am still having difficulty with that. I want immortality so I can go back to school and learn the math I need. And brain implants so I can deal with the math without feeling like Mr Gumby so often.

In GR, gravity is not a force. ....... Even the topology idea becomes hard to accept. The catch is I can't figure out how to use topology for both gravity and acceleration even though they are indistinguishable or rather because they are.Ethelred

if the universe has a fabric, and that fabric is ossolating, ( mqaybe even at a constant ), then you can postulate not just gr and acc, but also maybe heat and mass from the topology of the fabric.

the universe does look like its made out of something on the small scale.

The measurement of time is arbitrary, really.Why do we say hours, seconds? Why do we divide a day into two: day and night?Why do we say that the solar revolution takes 1 year?, 12 months?We could use another unit, that is a fragment of different "time "? Is time only different states, ie spatial positions of the earth to the sun.Is not it time a human construct?

If time is only in mathmactics than we live in a world of mathmatics. their rules and properties applying to us directly not just in theory.

Independently of the question whether time is only a mathematical concept or not, we don't really live in a world of mathematics.Instead, we live in a physical world which can be described ("modelled") by mathematics. These models are ruled by mathematics.But mathematics is richer than physics, Thus, _not all_ mathematical rules and properties apply to the physical world. There are lots of mathematics without any physical analogue. For instance the Dirichlet function which is everywhere discontinuous.

:)At first, they took away the human construct of absolute frame of reference.Next, they took away the human construct of time.Then, they took away the human construct of arbitrariness.Finally, they took away the construct labeled humans.

Proclaiming at that point:Let there be void and darkness!And it was good.

"In psychiatry, the term neologism is used to describe the use of words that only have meaning to the person who uses them, independent of their common meaning.[2] This is considered normal in children.

Since we no longer have time, we are led to one, and only one, conclusion:

We are children.Of all ages.And it was good.

Ethelred has Dr. Gumby.Elisan has neologism.And I am having a good TIME. lol

If it were simply topology then two stationary objects would have no reason to begin to fall toward each other.

On the other hand, if gravity is a result of a local increase in the zero point energy of space, then quantum fluctuations in the objects "creating the field" will draw them together, since the gravitational field has in effect induced more space between the objects than on the opposing side.

d o1 D o2 d

d < D d,D density of space as measured compared to a projection from a large distance from o1 and o2.

"No observer can ever see the speed of light in a vacuum change. " - Ubavon

c is determined by the scattering density of the particles that compose the vacuum. Increase their density and you increase the number of scattering events and in one view you decrease c.

In another view if you presume that c is a constant, then you have manufactured space since the transit time through a volume has increased, and the distance traveled must have increased in order to keep c fixed.

"Next, you'll tell us about "zero point weather" - as energy invariably flows from higher to lower potentials!" - Ubavon

The value of c is determined by the amount of scattering a photon experience while traveling through space. Between scattering events c is infinite, but emission delays within the scattering events themselves reduce the effective speed to c.

linear time "past-present-future" is a mind construct into which we experience change in the universe

The measurement of time is arbitrary, really.Why do we say hours, seconds? Why do we divide a day into two: day and night?Why do we say that the solar revolution takes 1 year?, 12 months?We could use another unit, that is a fragment of different "time "? Is time only different states, ie spatial positions of the earth to the sun.Is not it time a human construct?

The catch is I can't figure out how to use topology for both gravity and acceleration even though they are indistinguishable or rather because they are.

"My brain hurts."

If it helps, it's only indistinguishable in a sealed room. If you can look out (particularly "under" your floor), it rapidly becomes apparent you're either on a planet, or accelerating.

That is, they aren't really indistinguishable in the broad sense, but rather only in a narrow sense.

An aside: Awhile back, I described methodologies wherein a sealed room observer might tell the difference between acceleration and resting on a planet, through experimentation. The caveat was, the sealed room must obey all the laws of physics, save being able to perpetually accelerate. It was a fun brain stretch.

Independently of the question whether time is only a mathematical concept or not, we don't really live in a world of mathematics.

How would you tell the difference? As far as I can figure there is no way. Which is why I try to make it clear that I am aware that it is philosophy and not science. Maybe its possible but that would at the very least require a way to detect and observe other Universes.

But mathematics is richer than physics,

Yes. But I don't see how any universe could support all of mathematics. Some sort of symmetry breaking would have to occur. And of course some sorts of math simply could not support life. So nothing would ever notice the existence of them.

Temperature is the kinetic energy of particles bouncing around. There can be no bouncing or kinetic energy unless there is TIME.

Look, you aren't going to make time go away by hoping no one notices that you are simply hiding the time related elements. Not one of your examples have been time independent. ALL have required movement. Posting them has required time. Discussing it has required time.

linear time "past-present-future" is a mind construct into which we experience change in the universe

A few posts ago you said time was an ordered series. The mind does not create nor construct the order and has no control over the order and the results are, in your own words, indistinguishable mathematically from the normal concept of time.

The brain does not construct time. It is a construct OF time via evolution.

So I feel the need, the need to waste my TIME asking you VERY relevant questions.

WHAT THE BLOODY HELL MAKES YOUR IDEA WORTHWHILE SINCE IT IS NOTHING BUT PHILOSOPHY?

Its pretty clear why now why you PMed me. You didn't want to discuss this in public.

Why do you think evasion is useful? Does the school know that your engaging in such a poor attempt at discussion? Why would anyone want to study in a school where the teachers obdurately refuse to answer questions?

Temperature is the mean energy of MOTION. At thermodynamic level we assume the " system" is changing over time from one equilibrium state to another equilibrium state and that is how we get rid off TIME in the equations but is still there implicitly. There will be no system evolution if no time. One single configuration of the system is a snapshot in time of the system.

WHAT THE BLOODY HELL MAKES YOUR IDEA WORTHWHILE SINCE IT IS NOTHING BUT PHILOSOPHY?

It does sound like just moving the units around in the equations without ever changing the math, but the change in viewpoint has helped me, I think. Again, I'm a complete novice, but I've always had trouble seeing how anything was actually explained by the idea of a gravitational field as a surface that can be depressed by massive objects.

This article led me to think of space as a (very large) set of (very tiny) volumes (Planck distance cubed?), with photons hopping from one volume to the next, but never being able to move any shorter distance than that. If c is still the cosmic speed limit, then the existence of black holes means that space has to do something that is not motion in order to keep the units of space ahead of the photons that want to hop through them.

The non-motion thing could be explained if a gravitational field were a sort of extra-dimensional conveyor belt

that forces units of space away from massive objects (they get crowded out as the local density goes up?) and into regions of space that are emptier.

At that point, the gravitational field might look like a surface from a distance (the stereotypical rubber sheet with a bowling ball in the middle), but that flatness is an artifact of the observer's perspective. Looking very close (and in an extra dimension), you'd see that there is volume and structure and motion within the plane of that sheet. Rotate your perspective, and the first sheet would leave your view while new ones constantly blossomed before you, but all of them are just Flatland representations of a higher-dimensional reality.

There's still a problem of motion here, though. The units of space should not exceed the speed of light even in that extra dimension, so how do they get away from the photons that are trying so desperately to hop on them?

I think that can be answered if photons are constrained a move a discrete unit of distance in a discrete unit of time, which sounds like a bit of quantum mechanics, as far as I understand it. Crucially, they cannot move less than that or more than that, nor any faster or slower. Now add this caveat: There must be a unit of space waiting to receive the photon in its destination, or it is forced to hop back to where it came from.

Now it is not necessary for the gravitational conveyor belt to move away from the photon faster than light. Instead, it just has to move TOWARD the oncoming photon fast enough to leave it no place to land.

In a normal gravitational field, the fractional motion of space-units is such that the photon can catch the next unit of space, or the one after that. Near a black hole, on the other hand the fractional motion of space-units is such that the photon always misses its mark. I think you'd stop seeing photons escape when the conveyor belt reaches c/2.

At greater than c/2, the fractions are in the photon's favor again, and it eventually does hop to the next unit of space. However, its origin was also moving at greater than c/2, so it actually ends up going backwards (from the perspective of a distant observer, who of course never actually sees any of this).

No doubt it would be better/simpler to get rid of the conveyor belt in any real theory, and instead say something along the lines of the units of space being compressed or inflated depending on their location in the gravity well. But my original point was, this article led me down the path to the conveyor belt analogy, and suddenly I can visualize things in a way that helps me understand better (maybe, I think).

Thank you for listening to Amateur Hour. We now return you to your regularly scheduled erudition.

dnatwork, The thing about that rubber sheet analogy is; What is its topology, without the gravity wells? Flat. So we add the gravity wells and it's not flat anymore, but the areas between those gravity wells are not still on the original flat plane, but are pushed up proportional to the degree the wells pull it down, so the overall effect is still flat. That is exactly what we observe. Between gravity wells, there is this cosmological constant which balances the effect of gravity and keeps the universe from collapsing. Now if we observe light that has managed to weave its way past all the intervening gravity fields, it has only crossed space which is part of the "bulged out sheet" and so is redshifted relative to distance. If I may use another simplistic analogy, it has been climbing up the down escalator.

Independently of the question whether time is only a mathematical concept or not, we don't really live in a world of mathematics.

How would you tell the difference? As far as I can figure there is no way. Which is why I try to make it clear that I am aware that it is philosophy and not science. Maybe its possible but that would at the very least require a way to detect and observe other Universes.

But mathematics is richer than physics,

Yes. But I don't see how any universe could support all of mathematics. Some sort of symmetry breaking would have to occur. And of course some sorts of math simply could not support life. So nothing would ever notice the existence of them.

More Philosophy.It is difficult to 'catch' 'now'. 'Now' must be really 'fast'.Any 'sign' of 'now' is "for the record".As if spacetime is "for the record" and not the "event".Reminds me of picking a point on a continuous line that with present day tools of math no one can find. Arbitrary close? Sure. That is still not my point.Pun intended as well. :)

It's difficult to catch events, as they are composed of light. "Now" has you every moment.What if the point is stable and the line moves through it?

If we say that the mathematical world is richer than the physical world, it's like saying that with the words in a dictionary we can write endless stories differ. But if we are characters in a particular story we are using only the words contained in that story.This can make us say that may be there physical worlds with different mathematical models? or we can build them physically using other mathematical models, as well as we can write a different story respect that the protogonists are living. Or maybe just the fact that we are the protagonists, not the author of history, we can not do anything else that live history (the physical world we live in) and do not create any more?

@hush1My nick Elisan is't a neologism, it is a acronym of my irst name and second name (you see in to my profile).

With regard to the timeless world of children ... does not psychology tell us to discover the kid in us?And Nietzsche was not speaking of the Dionysian world like a world of childhood and happiness?But while we want a better world, now we have to deal with this world, some call it a valley of tears.

Why are so many people in here crazy? Everyone thinks they're a genius. Just listen, read and either agree or disagree but don't take things so freakin personal!

"Anyone who thinks they're important is usually just a pompous moron who can't deal with his or her own pathetic insignificance and the fact that what they do is meaningless and inconsequential."- William Thomas

@PeterSharesI do not know what and who you are referring. Crazy or genius, here I found people who want to make an argument and they do it, right or wrong that might be for others. Maybe because I live in a country where he lost the habit of thinking and where people express themselves with slogans. I appreciate the words that I read. I can share them or not, but its stimulate to think. And that's the important thing for me.You know, anyone have the truth in your pocket.

Their historical evolutions? Their contents? Something else?How is "static science" defined, how is "dynamic science" defined?

I didn't say "science." Science is the study of processes. Math is static because it is conceptual modeling and modeling is reductionistic framing. If you still have dynamic processes going on, within that model, it quickly breaks apart. Physics must describe the dynamic processes and it necessarily gets fuzzy when it gets too precise. Consider the concept of one. As math, it's eternal and inviolate, but consider any individual physical object and it's just a finite and subjective node in some larger network.

Psychology is a favorite subject of mine. As with all things, there are areas of Psychology to which there is no agreement.Psychological recognition of a "child" 'element(s)' in us, I wholly, fully support and endorse.

Nietzsche. Yes. Psychologically, a close relationship is conjectured to exist between him and his sister. Siblings play an essential role in the happiness of a person's childhood.

I am not alone here on this thread commentary, when I say: many commentators find thoughtful insight in your commentary.Commentary always fulfills the purpose I read here: to learn.

The authors of this endeavor have promised experimentation.Our discourse over this now is premature. Any discourse over a change in the way of thinking is a good primer though, if the change is necessary and occurs. Thanks for your reply.

The authors of this endeavor have promised experimentation.Our discourse over this now is premature. Any discourse over a change in the way of thinking is a good primer though, if the change is necessary and occurs. Thanks for your reply.

Oh yes, and testing and replicability of a theory, hypothesis or model are thouse which differ from the scientific approach to the philosophical reflection.

Reflection. The world of words and language is complex.Unfortunately I translate from Italian, I do not think in English. And when I write the answers here, I'm afraid sometimes I do not use the right words.This too is thinking ... the human mind needs time to learn.If I hypothesize to eliminate time as a category, what I mean such as learning? Why learning is inherent in an ordered sequence of states? Why can not I effectively or logically choose some state in a disordered sequence? Why can not I go (jump) directly to a state of total learning?Ultimately, the questions on time will be reduced to this: why there is order and not disorder?And what role has the concept of entropy in all this?

This I can say from my frame of reference with absolute certainty:I wanted to leave this thread and the commentary with Wittgenstein's Adage;

"The limits of your languages are the limits of your world"

Ironically, I will use numerical order of change to mark my original words,thought,action,event and intended departure.

The 230th comment is my comment. (Depends if you include zero in counting) I depart on that comment and this prediction:

The language we ultimately learn to describe Nature requires no translation. A universal language for a Universe we will ultimately experience. I just don't know when. Why do I not know when this occurs? Because 'when' is the object of this discussion now.

Your 'Child' has spoken: "I'm afraid sometimes I do not use the right words."

My 'Parent' says: "However you use words, words are last on a list of fears, you need to fear."

With that said... Reality is what it is, not what we think it is. We can observe reality and participate in it, but our definitions of reality do not necessarily prove the nature of reality. The best we can hope for is to observe and affirm reality. I believe reality continues whether or not I observe it, and if my observations change or add to reality, then I have more power than any one would give me credit for.

There is one question I do not see the answer to in this thread. That is hopefully simply put, If our universe ceased to exist would time still exist? If time is a function of movement, gravity, space, thought, observations, whatever... Does time exist without our Universe? Does time only exist because energy-matter exists? Or is time existent on some level without our participation? Are we trapped in a time-bubble that causes time to be ineffably incomprehensible while we are in it, like an ameba on a microscope slide only perceives his dimension of reality?

No doubt it would be better/simpler to get rid of the conveyor belt in any real theory, and instead say something along the lines of the units of space being compressed or inflated depending on their location in the gravity well.

No, better to keep the conveyor belt in the form of the lines of force of the gravitic field (like magnetic field lines, but with no poles). The force lines extend in all directions and follow an elliptic path, with the massive object as one of the foci. The stronger the gravity, the closer the approach of the ellipse to that focus, and the farther the other end reaches out into the rest of the universe.

If gravity is mediated by particles, they would zip along the force lines at a speed determined by the shape of the ellipse and their position on it. Really wide ellipses (black holes, of course) would have a point where the outward motion drops to zero, so the particles just hang there and never return their juice to the universe.

Just repeating yourself doesn't change things, indeed that seems the point of your idea. So how about you take your own concept to heart and CHANGE instead of repeating the same thing.

But change still takes time. Time may be meaningless without change but there is no change without time. Time is NOT just a numerical order of change. It CONTROLS how much change can occur in any interval. The length of time is the key not the amount of change.

If the universe is timeless, what sense does it make to talk of change or cause and effect? If the universe is timeless, the effect and the cause exist eternally. What am I missing here? It sounds like scientists are trying to have their cake and eat it, too.

As we observe and count its duration time can only be a measure of the change from moment to moment or from cause to effect, of the conditions or positions of space and matter.

Therefore, it cannot be considered as a directional dimension (e.g., 1-D, 2-D, 3-D, etc.) of empty space, electro-gravitational energy fields, or material forms.

This dos not mean that the universe is timeless, but that time is not a scalar dimension, nor is it a directional vector other than as a measurement of the rate of change from one physical or metaphysical condition or position to another. For example, frequency is the change in time of cyclic motion as an energy wave expands and contracts from positive to negative polarity.

Obviously, then, time cannot be the cause or effect of such change, nor is it any part of the wave or object that changes its shape, position, momentum, etc.

For example, frequency is the change in time of cyclic motion as an energy wave expands and contracts from positive to negative polarity.

Obviously, then, time cannot be the cause or effect of such change, nor is it any part of the wave or object that changes its shape, position, momentum, etc.

But this is incorrect, as spacetime controls the local perception of frequency.

If two observers are in uniform motion relative to an observed frequency generator (they're not in motion relative to the generator) and one is in a gravity well and the other not, they will perceive different frequencies from the same source (and experience different clock rates from each other, as a result). Therefore, time is a property of spacetime, and not simply a numerical order of change.

For example, frequency is the change in time of cyclic motion as an energy wave expands and contracts from positive to negative polarity.

Obviously, then, time cannot be the cause or effect of such change, nor is it any part of the wave or object that changes its shape, position, momentum, etc.

But this is incorrect, as spacetime controls the local perception of frequency.

If two observers are in uniform motion relative to an observed frequency generator (they're not in motion relative to the generator) and one is in a gravity well and the other not, they will perceive different frequencies from the same source (and experience different clock rates from each other, as a result). Therefore, time is a property of spacetime, and not simply a numerical order of change.

The differences could simply be a doppler effect, due to the difference in the gravitational forces effecting the wave length of the reflected observing radiation. (more)

Since the clock's time cycles remain constant (inside the clock) -- no matter where they are observed from the cycle-time is still simply a measure of change in the polarity of the clocks wave cycle. Therefore, it cannot be a cause of such change or any part of the waveform of the clock cycle itself.

If we say that the mathematical world is richer than the physical world, it's like saying that with the words in a dictionary we can write endless stories differ.

I'm not sure whether I understand you. You see mathematics as a dictionary with words to build physical universes and our universe as the one we are confined to but not necessarily as the only one?While this is a very lyrical picture, I see things more pragmatic: The physical universe is the initial source for the words in a dictionary (called mathematics) made by humans. We use the (subset of understood) words in this dictionary not only to invent stories, we also use them to invent new words; therefore mathematics is richer than physics.While physics evolved to produce us humans, we are the creators of mathematics. We own mathematics. Physics owns us. We may create stories and call them "other universes" but they'll remain unfalsifiable human phantasies forever.

The differences could simply be a doppler effect, due to the difference in the gravitational forces effecting the wave length of the reflected observing radiation.

Nope. Not only is the wavelength different, but the clock rate is different, as well. This has been verified by experiment.

Since the clock's time cycles remain constant (inside the clock)

That would be an example of local spacetime.

-- no matter where they are observed from the cycle-time is still simply a measure of change in the polarity of the clocks wave cycle.

So now you're suggesting human-made clocks control incoming wave frequencies? Really? How do they do that?

Therefore, it cannot be a cause of such change or any part of the waveform of the clock cycle itself.

By "it" may I presume you mean spacetime? Spacetime changes the "waveform" (clock rate) of the clock for distant observers. Locally, the speed of light (and ergo perceived clock rates) must always be uniform.

Their historical evolutions? Their contents? Something else?How is "static science" defined, how is "dynamic science" defined?

...

Science is the study of processes. Math is static because it is conceptual modeling and modeling is reductionistic framing.

Maths is more than only modelling. The history of number theory shows that maths is creating. The invention of the imaginary numbers wasn't reductionist framing. Neither were Goedel's incompleteness theorems. Opening the mind to unknown truths is not appropriately described by calling it "reductionistic framing".Science is not only the study of processes. Processes are structures involving time. Science is also the study of general structures.Maths is as dynamic as every science with a history.

If the universe is timeless, what sense does it make to talk of change or cause and effect?

It isn't timeless in this concept. It has time in sense of a ordered series either of C for Change or more reasonably T for Time.

1 Events occur in a time ordered manner

2 Events occur that are dependent on what happened in the lower numbered instances.

3 It can be considered as a set of integers based on the Planck interval.

4 This is the fourth number in this set of time ordered events. Of course I didn't write them in 4 Planck intervals. Indeed, each character I typed took many such intervals.

5 Frankly I understand this far better than Amrit or he would have been answering questions like this one instead of evading them. But I have been thinking about this for many years. I am not very comfortable with it as I have said previously on this site. By which I mean you can find my posts on other articles going back many months if not more than a year.

11 Which lead to time being in some sense illusory since each time ordered event can be considered as existing outside of the time that we experience as a mathematical set. Which bugs me. And everyone that comments on my posts, I think.

12 Still I can't see anything wrong with the idea even though others have made comments that show they see things wrong with it none of those comments have actually addressed the point I have made several times, even on this thread of:

13 How could you tell the difference if the math works the same either way?

14 Which is why I say it is philosophy and not science. Amrit is unwilling to admit to this which is why I keep asking him to explain just what makes this more than philosophy. He has yet to even admit that the question has been asked.

15 Which is what Cranks often do. They frequently ignore inconvenient questions.

I just received another mindless PM from Amrit. He seems to completely incapable of comprehending the concept of public discussion. I am stupefied that anyone involved in science can be this thick.

This gravity probe Bhttp://www.physor...ies.htmlproves following:-cosmic space is 3D - because all the angles are measured in three directions X,Y,Z-cosmic space has granular structure - frame dragging...outcome is that time we measure with clocks cannot be the 4th dimension of space:

Ethelred:"It isn't timeless in this concept. It has time in sense of a ordered series either of C for Change or more reasonably T for Time."

It has the sense of an ordered series, but that's just an illusion under the 4D block universe. In the block universe, with no time, nothing moves, nothing "happens", and literally nothing "changes". Why things appear ordered then becomes a HUGE mystery. There quite literally is no "becoming" under this view.

I appreciate the response, but that doesn't seem to jive with what the article says.

It has the sense of an ordered series, but that's just an illusion under the 4D block universe

As you can see Amrit has a problem with 4D space. He can't make it go away in the math but he keeps making the claim that it doesn't exist.

What do you mean by 'BLOCK' universe? Please tell me it does not involve 'conveyor belts'.

In the block universe, with no time, nothing moves, nothing "happens"

Yes, BLOCK or not. So what does that have to do with a Universe with time? A ordered series of change IS time. Note that Amrit has admitted that this is mathematically indistinguishable from the usual concept of time. He seems to have forgotten he said that.

Why things appear ordered then becomes a HUGE mystery.

No more so than in the Standard Model where particles have no direction in time. One of the favored idea is that entropy gives direction to time on the macro level. I like that but I tend to go with it as property of the Universe and WHY doesn't enter into it.>>

I appreciate the response, but that doesn't seem to jive with what the article says.

What I wrote I am pretty darn sure matches the actual concept of the article. In the article time is an illusion due to an ordered series of change. Which Amrit has admitted is indistinguishable mathematically from time.

What you are saying is if there is if there is no time there is no change, which I agree with but that is NOT what the article is saying. Amrit is saying that the time is just a listing of change in an ordered series. But the two ways of thinking produce the same math. No matter how many PMs Amrit sends me saying I don't understand it. He has yet to show a single mistake in what I have written. Even in the PMs.

Amrit, if I got that wrong SHOW WHERE. Those silly PMs are like John Cleese in the Monty Python argument sketch. Completely without meaning or value except as entertainment.

Sorry, that makes no sense to me. WE live in a 4D universe. Three of space and one of time which is actually a set, space-time, in GR. Or ordered change instead of time, in Amrit's concept. And I notice that I can type thus there is change in this Universe.

Perhaps if you explain just why there is no change with time or change as a dimension it will make some sense.

The same Amrit Sorli tried to weigh souls of the worms in one experiment 20 years ago and even applied for Randi's Million Dollar Challenge. He can hardly be seen as a scientist and his papers hardly recognized as science. The quality of his papers reflects this fact.

If the universe is 4d, and all events, past, present, and future, already exist in this 4d universe, then yes, there is no change. You apparently find this counterintuitive, as do I. However, to state that there are 4 dimensions that exist in a block universe as argued by the tenseless physicists entails that nothing ever changes. The future is what it is, and does not change - it's "there" already. In this sense, the article really is poorly written because it switches back and forth between the A theory and B theory of time.

You see mathematics as a dictionary with words to build physical universes and our universe as the one we are confined to but not necessarily as the only one?

Well that is one way to put it. I don't myself. I think of it as more a matter of symmetry breaking.

While this is a very lyrical picture, I see things more pragmatic:

I see it as mathematical. Nothing lyrical in it. VERY pragmatic in any case. Just do the math.

I was talking with Elisan who doesn't think in English terms. Neither do I. I'm not able to see any relevance in your comments for my conversation with Elisan as you do think in English terms. There could have been relevance if your comment would have considered the special situation of people who don't think English but use English as a means of conversation.

seems in a living mass dark matter is additionally concentrated.....this show my preliminary experiment

m alive = m dead + delta m (this delta m might be dark matter)

The same Amrit Sorli tried to weigh souls of the worms in one experiment 20 years ago and even applied for Randi's Million Dollar Challenge. He can hardly be seen as a scientist and his papers hardly recognized as science. The quality of his papers reflects this fact.

seems in a living mass dark matter is additionally concentrated.....this show my preliminary experiment

m alive = m dead + delta m (this delta m might be dark matter)

what? Can you have someone translate for you, please?

Are you trying to prove living things contain more dark matter than nonliving? That we affect the dark matter? What is your hypothesis? What does this have to do with spacetime? Ahhh. Maybe it is warped by the dark matter in our brains giving us supernatural abilities? I don't think we are that special.

seems in a living mass dark matter is additionally concentrated.....this show my preliminary experiment

m alive = m dead + delta m (this delta m might be dark matter)

what? Can you have someone translate for you, please?

Are you trying to prove living things contain more dark matter than nonliving? That we affect the dark matter? What is your hypothesis? What does this have to do with spacetime? Ahhh. Maybe it is warped by the dark matter in our brains giving us supernatural abilities? I don't think we are that special.

Yes. But not all forms of math are compatible with a functioning Universe.

Your "but" is inappropriate as your statement is not contradicting mine.

Some forms of math are not compatible with each other.

You listened to my conversation with hush1 about the Axiom of Choice?

Such as Euclidean vs. Non-Euclidean geometry.

No, you didn't listen. Otherwise you'd know that Euclidean geometry is just a special case.

While physics evolved to produce us humans,

Physics sorted out but not produce us.

You are trying to split non-existing hairs. Humans, as every object existing for a finite interval of time, have been produced by environment. They have not been sorted out because they didn't exist before their production.

-cosmic space is 3D - because all the angles are measured in three directions X,Y,Z

But space-time is 4D.

-cosmic space has granular structure

Possibly. And its space-time not just space.

frame dragging...outcome is that time we measure with clocks cannot be the 4th dimension of space:

False. It is proof that time and space MUST be a single set. If you think otherwise try posting a reason instead of making yet another bald assertion with no math or even reason to support it.

Ethelred

Other than the standard renormalized "mathematics - which is contrived to verify the assumptions - where is your "proof" that time is a "physical" (i.e.directional) dimension of the observable 3-space? From any observer POV In each moment of time, that space is all that exists. Therefore, logically, time can only be the measure of change from each moment to the next. e,g., the change is in movements of the galaxies, stars and particles, plus expansion

Yes, amrit, we know all about the experiment from Randi's website. It seems that you publish your findings in journals with - ehm - dubious reputation. The article in which you described your involvement with worms was published in Frontier Perspectives. Randi's description of that journal:

"There exists a journal titled, 'Frontier Perspectives' which is published by the Center for Frontier Sciences at Temple University, Philadelphia. It purports to be a scientific journal, but is so chock full of pseudoscience and quackery, that Professor John Allen Paulos of Temple University, author of "Innumeracy," reports that the faculty of Temple is embarrassed by the journal."

Other than the standard renormalized "mathematics - which is contrived to verify the assumptions - where is your "proof" that time is a "physical" (i.e.directional) dimension of the observable 3-space? From any observer POV In each moment of time, that space is all that exists. Therefore, logically, time can only be the measure of change from each moment to the next. e,g., the change is in movements of the galaxies, stars and particles, plus expansion

Thank you. Someone else gets it. This does not bode well for time travel, either, no matter how mathematically possible the quacks say it is. The only reason that events appear to occur at different times to different observers is because light does not travel at an infinite speed. Change is what happens, the past is gone, and there is nothing to travel back to.

results of this experiment are preliminary.......we will see, doing an experiment with human factor zero

Yes, amrit, we know all about the experiment from Randi's website. It seems that you publish your findings in journals with - ehm - dubious reputation. The article in which you described your involvement with worms was published in Frontier Perspectives. Randi's description of that journal:

"There exists a journal titled, 'Frontier Perspectives' which is published by the Center for Frontier Sciences at Temple University, Philadelphia. It purports to be a scientific journal, but is so chock full of pseudoscience and quackery, that Professor John Allen Paulos of Temple University, author of "Innumeracy," reports that the faculty of Temple is embarrassed by the journal."

Your "but" is inappropriate as your statement is not contradicting mine.

Actually I was contradicting you since you stated it as something that contradicted my idea and I was pointing out that it SUPPORTS my idea since it has always part of it.

However BUT can often be used in place of AND as both are conjunctives with the same logical meaning though(or but) they have different implied meanings. BUT HOWEVER THOUGH AND PLUS INCLUDING all can be used interchangeably in most cases. That is the good and the bad of English. Many words with similar meanings. This concludes the English lesson from someone that failed his college entrance exam for English. I have improved I think or at least I no longer give a damn what English teachers think is proper grammar: and punctuation.

Doesn't change what I said. The Universe can be a subset of math and need not, indeed can not, have physics that involves all of mathematics. No universe could without collapsing due to contradictory laws.

No, you didn't listen. Otherwise you'd know that Euclidean geometry is just a special case.

You didn't listen. Only one can be true in any viable Universe. You are looking for ways to make my idea go away and are avoiding the point that no VIABLE universe can have physics that mirrors ALL of mathematics. This in no way makes it impossible for universes to exist with a SUBSET of mathematics as their basis.

Other than the standard renormalized "mathematics - which is contrived to verify the assumptions - where is your "proof" that time is a "physical" (i.e.directional) dimension of the observable 3-space? From any observer POV In each moment of time, that space is all that exists. Therefore, logically, time can only be the measure of change from each moment to the next. e,g., the change is in movements of the galaxies, stars and particles, plus expansion

Thank you. Someone else gets it. This does not bode well for time travel, either, no matter how mathematically possible the quacks say it is. The only reason that events appear to occur at different times to different observers is because light does not travel at an infinite speed. Change is what happens, the past is gone, and there is nothing to travel back to.

"No, that isn't exactly right. It is more important that c is constant in all frames than it just not being infinite. Relativity."

I agree. But c being constant and finite still entails that different observers may not agree on when an event occurs relative to events in their inertial frame.

"Not if Godel universes are viable. CTCs!!!!! Gotta fix it or show why it doesn't work if you want to make time "the numerical order of material change".

And herein lies the quackery. This makes the presumption that CTCs actually exist outside of abstract mathematics. The burden of proof is on "scientists" to prove that these solutions to GR are actual, and not merely theoretical.

And herein lies the quackery. This makes the presumption that CTCs actually exist outside of abstract mathematics. The burden of proof is on "scientists" to prove that these solutions to GR are actual, and not merely theoretical.

Wouldn't you think that the burden would be on those upending one of the foundations of GR, i.e. space-time? I merely point to one famous mathematician's work, that IS consistent within GR that has yet to be proven incompatible with reality, AND that the authors of the paper in this article refer to.

Further, Godel universes aren't an ignored area of study. Many physicists have spent time studying Godel's solutions and, again AFAIK, nobody has come up with why a universe couldn't be constructed in this manner and still be consistent with GR. They have shown, however, that our universe seems to not be a Godel universe based on red shift observations.

"Wouldn't you thik that the burden would be on those upending one of the foundations of GR...?"

No. To the extent GR matches observations, it's silly to talk about upending it. The problem comes in when a mathematical construct goes beyond observation and makes further claims, which almost all mathematical constructs do. Past the point of observation, it is precisely those claiming the additional "reality" to prove it. Part of any "improvement" to GR in the future might entail that CTCs are impossible.

"Wouldn't you thik that the burden would be on those upending one of the foundations of GR...?"

No. To the extent GR matches observations, it's silly to talk about upending it. The problem comes in when a mathematical construct goes beyond observation and makes further claims, which almost all mathematical constructs do. Past the point of observation, it is precisely those claiming the additional "reality" to prove it. Part of any "improvement" to GR in the future might entail that CTCs are impossible.

Without empirical proof, it's simply no longer science.

Agreed. But, if time was a real "dimension" of space - why is it that we can move willfully in any direction, at any speed, and to any place in 3-D metric space, but cannot speed up, slow down, or change our position in time - no matter how hard we will it?

Wouldn't this indicate that time was an abstraction related only to measurement of continued changes in physical states or locations?

@Jnwaco: Lost me there. My point was that CTCs have been shown to be consistent with GR and seem to me to be in direct conflict with the article's premise. GR is a theory that has been validated time and again by our observations. As such, the idea that time is not what GR says it is give me pause.

I think CTCs are evidence that GR needs to be "improved" as you put it. I believe they are an artifact of a theory pushed beyond its limits, as are singularities in black holes and a myriad other "allowable" things within GR. Intuitively I like the author's premise, but without the math to fix GR, they just aren't saying anything novel or useful.(btw, I don't think CTCs are affected by the idea of past present and future being predetermined. In fact I think CTCs would be very possible in "block time".)

"'Minkowski space is not 3D + T, it is 4D,' the scientists write in their most recent paper."

Cranks. If you handle time the same way as space in Minkowski space you wrong answers half the time. Move on. It's handled as 3+1, not 4. This is so basic it's ridiculous. Literally. You could teach it in high school. They wouldn't like you, but you could.

Dingdong: "Wouldn't this indicate that time was an abstraction related only to measurement of continued changes in physical states or locations?"That's what I personally feel is the reality. Unfortunately, I have no idea, not being a trained physicist, of how this would be tested.

@Pyle"Lost me there. My point was that CTCs have been shown to be consistent with GR and seem to me to be in direct conflict with the article's premise."

I have absolutely no reason to doubt that they are currently mathematically consistent with GR. And I agree 100% that they hint at a need to improve upon GR and that it has been pushed past its limits - or ours.

I don't think CTCs are affected by block time, either. I have doubts that block time is a good way to think about time, though, given we actually experience change.

And yes, it is a theory, just not a scientific one, at the moment.

As to the article, I'm still confused by their shifting between the philosophical A and B theories

Recent research on Stanfordhttp://www.physor...ies.htmlshows geodetic precession and Frame dragging precession are measured in a 3D space in which satellite move. This is a prove that universal space is 3D. Time is definitely not dimension of space. Time is the numerical order of satellite motion.In physics time is a mathematical dimension for description of satellite motion in space, but we have to be aware satellite moves in space only.

Change is the fundamental property of material world. Time that we measure with clocks is the numerical order of change, i.e. motion in space. In physical world time exists as the numerical order of change in space. In physics time is a mathematical dimension used for description of change in material world. It is an utter misunderstanding to think time is part of space and change run in time.

What do you mean by 'BLOCK' universe? Please tell me it does not involve 'conveyor belts'.

Ouch. You know, that was just a metaphor to help me visualize and describe the ideas in my head. There is no doubt that I understand nothing, so no comparison with Einstein is warranted, but I don't think anyone chided him for talking about elevators and trains.

If anything, you should have objected to the part about juice being returned to the universe. Another metaphor, clearly, but I failed to attribute it to Kung Fu Panda.

The thing about that rubber sheet analogy is; What is its topology, without the gravity wells? Flat. So we add the gravity wells and it's not flat anymore, but the areas between those gravity wells are not still on the original flat plane, but are pushed up proportional to the degree the wells pull it down, so the overall effect is still flat. That is exactly what we observe. Between gravity wells, there is this cosmological constant which balances the effect of gravity and keeps the universe from collapsing.

If gravity causes both the well and the bulge, doesn't this imply that gravity is both attractive (near the mass) and repulsive (far from the mass)? If that's true, and if gravity were described that way in the theory (I assume it is not; the cosmological constant is a fudge factor that Einstein did not like, right?), why would one need dark energy? That is, would there be anything left for dark energy to explain?

shows geodetic precession and Frame dragging precession are measured in a 3D space in which satellite move. T

No. It shows SPACE_TIME which is FOUR dimensions. It doesn't become 3D just because you say so. Which is all you have done the whole thread. And in the article. The original math was about space-time and it worked.

Time is definitely not dimension of space.

Correct. It is a dimension of SPACE-TIME.

Time is the numerical order of satellite motion.

Except that the math was done in SPACE-TIME and if time is a numerical oder the math is still of SPACE-TIME and that won't go away by you repeating yourself.

In physics time is a mathematical dimension for description of satellite motion in space, but we have to be aware satellite moves in space only.

No. We have to be aware that ALL the math was done in SPACE-TIME. None was done without taking TIME into account.

What does replacing time with change add to human knowledge that TIME doesn't doesn't deal with already? Changing the words around is not a gain in information. Heck isn't even mere semantics because the math would simply be an attempt to hide TIME when the math of SPACE-TIME already works. Even made the prediction you FALSELY claim supports you. You didn't make the prediction. People working with GR and SPACE-TIME did so.

Where is the evidence and math that makes this more a silly point of philosophy? That link did NOT support you. Indeed it shows you are being silly at best.

And before you send me another PM saying I don't have a clue, just see if you the questions. Or at least show what you think is wrong in what I said and give some evidence to support the claim. That link supported me not you because the physics was based on SPACE-TIME not just space.

consider a person the 3 Dimensionconsider the space that surrounds the person the 4 Dimensionconsider TIME as the vibration of everything the 5 Dimensioneach vibration holds an infinite amount of possibilities or probabilities therefore there are infinite Dimensions after time

There is a big difference between me and him on this thread. I know my ideas are philosophical in nature and he seems to be without a clue on that. And I am willing to discuss it by expanding on what I have written rather simply repeat the same ideas with minor changes in wording.

I simply have seen no advantage whatsoever by avoiding using TIME and trying to replace it with change. Amrit has said nothing that gives us a clue as to why anyone would want to do so. At present the best thing I can come up with about time is that it is a property of the universe we live and the only why is that it makes for a viable functional universe. Universes without time would indeed have everything happen at once. Once wouldn't even be an issue. Iterative processes like those that produced life can't happen in static universes.

"No. It shows SPACE_TIME which is FOUR dimensions. It doesn't become 3D just because you say so. Which is all you have done the whole thread. And in the article. The original math was about space-time and it worked."

A "static universe" is precisely what physicists who take Minkowski Space too literally end up proposing. Then, philosophers glom onto the idea and argue that the B Theory of time is the correct view of time. Then, physiscists and philosophers would need to explain why we consciously experience a state of becoming instead of experiencing our past, present, and future all at once.

results of this experiment are preliminary.......we will see, doing an experiment with human factor zero

Preliminary or not, it doesn't change the fact you are able to publish only in low-quality journals without impact factor and - evidently - without peer-review, if such poor papers, as yours, are published (I've checked your list of publications). Even Physics Essays has no impact factor, hence no impact on real science.

Ouch. You know, that was just a metaphor to help me visualize and describe the ideas in my head.

I just wanted to know what you mean by 'block'.

The conveyor belt concept has a serious problem in that it implies that light is slowed down instead of stretched out which is what is going on with gravitational redshift.

but I don't think anyone chided him for talking about elevators and trains.

Those ideas seem to fit the evidence. Analogies can help or hinder. I don't get what you meant by 'block' so it sure doesn't help me at the moment.

You seem to have confused my conveyor belt with someone else's block time.

If light is never slowed down, then why does is not escape a black hole? Is the idea that it is redshifted to an infinite wavelength, and somehow that explains why it can't get out? How is that different from being slowed down, really?

Or, it is still moving at c in its own frame of reference, and our perception of it from our frame is hindered?

@dnatwork: I noticed his confusion of you with Jnwaco too. Happens when threads get this long I guess.

If light is never slowed down, then why does is not escape a black hole? Is the idea that it is redshifted to an infinite wavelength, and somehow that explains why it can't get out? How is that different from being slowed down, really?

Or, it is still moving at c in its own frame of reference, and our perception of it from our frame is hindered?

My best answer is to go poke around on physicsforums.com in the astrophysics area. But barring actually looking for the right answer, here I go.

Gravity bends light. Light actually striking a point on the event horizon is bent enough that it just goes in a circle and doesn't leave.

There! An answer that avoids all the tricky questions. Who cares if it is right or not?

@Pyle: So light is still zipping along at c, but the space it is in has bent so much it folds back on itself, or into some kind of hyper-donut, or whatever shape would explain the fact that the light does not progress any farther despite its speed.

Excuse me if I should have said velocity. I'm not the difference matters when space itself is warped.

@dnatwork: I made it up. That isn't a technically correct answer. physicsforums.com has several discussions under astrophysics that address this. The answer is complicated and there are several different ideas about what actually happens to things that fall into a black hole. But you were right. They may never return their juice to the universe.

You seem to have confused my conveyor belt with someone else's block time

Possibly. There is a lot of stuff going on in this thread.

If light is never slowed down, then why does is not escape a black hole?

Light always travels at C in a vacuum. It doesn't escape a Black Hole because there are no paths out of a Black Hole. Light always travels in a straight path in space-time, which is not the same as a straight path in space. With a Black Hole ALL paths are contained within the BH. Another was to look at it, an easier way, is that light is bent back into the BH.

Is the idea that it is redshifted to an infinite wavelength, and somehow that explains why it can't get out?

Only if you assume that it is possible to point the light PERFECTLY out from the BH AND the BH is not spinning. Even a path that seems perpendicular to the surface of the BH can't leave the BH. It will just still just go around in a circle. Exactly as would happen in our Universe if it was closed.>>

That could only occur at the exact Event Horizon. Inside the BH there is no path out. At the EH that is what would happen. Only with a frequency of zero you don't have a photon anymore. So it wouldn't exist.

Or, it is still moving at c in its own frame of reference,

Light in a vacuum doesn't experience time. So I tend to think of it as not having a frame of reference. Now if we don't assume a perfect perpendicular THEN it would be moving at C in an orbit around the BH within the Event Horizon. Again if it started within the BH there is no path out.

And I may be completely full of shit on what happens at the Event Horizon. Inside I am pretty sure about. Outside isn't a problem. At the exact EH I suspect that questions about existence become kind of meaningless since time is at a standstill. Which I suppose means you can't produce a photon there to worry about.

Time "stopping" at the EH is an illusion because as you get closer and closer to the EH, light has a harder and harder time escaping the gravity. To an observer, it may appear as if you never enter the EH. You merely cross the EH and keep going, implying that time does not stop for you. Eventually, however, you're crushed to death, though.

So, light doesn't slow down, but its path is diverted, so it never gets where it seemed to be pointed when it started out. Or another way, its speed does not change, but its direction (and therefore its velocity) does.

For me, that's why the conveyor belt analogy helps. If you go in any direction, there is a specific path you must follow, defined by Planck-sized units of space linked together in a chain. That chain loops back on itself eventually; near a black hole, it loops back before you get out.

I guess I would think of the event horizon as the interface between convection cells, only infinitely thin. It's basically the imaginary space between the real spaces where things happen, so nothing can happen there because nothing can exist. A border that is a human construct, an artifact of theory that we have named for our convenience.

In quantum vacuum time is the numerical order of material change. In quantum vacuum past, present and future exist only as a numerical order of change. Numerical order on its own has no duration. Duration of numerical order of change enters existence by being measured with clocks by the observer. The observer's measuring creates "time" in a common meaning of this word. Universe itself is utterly timeless. Universe is NOW.

In quantum vacuum time is the &*?*()l **&der of mater*&?$?* &*((ange. In quan (*&?&*0(U&( esent and f'''''exist only as a numB)(*&&(*change. NumB *&???&?*&&(*&(*$%@%#&on of numerical ord*&?*&)(I 987u90)(I*0 *&??&#&*( clocks by the obseserv'sr crs "tie" in mon man of this bird. Universe itself is udderly )*taste&?%&?less. Universe is chOW asdwe3r23(&?.

I'm sorry, what was that? You're breaking up. Could you repeat that again? I couldn't...did you say time was the universal mother of eternal brains??? What the heck is up with that? And, hey, I'm all for the universe being chow, dude, but are you suggesting Dark Matter might be edible? Ho man, too cool!

I think AmritSorli would argue that time is slower for a frozen chicken as opposed to a room temperature chicken, even though neither will make a clock run slower relative to any observer. I can hear him now... "The numerical order of change for the frozen chicken is slower, therefore time is slower for the frozen chicken. This is true because I say so."

Maybe. But there is no reason to look at this way if the math is still based on T for Time. Unless you can convert all the math over to a change based system you are just engaged in philosophical mental masturbation.

Numerical order on its own has no duration

I seriously doubt this and you have presented NO evidence to support it. As others have pointed out this has a frozen chicken in time stasis which is silly. Far more likely is that the minimum time interval is the Planck Interval and that change is constrained by that interval. Light cannot travel farther through space-time than the Planck Length.

These mindless posts of yours that only repeat the same philosophical based, no evidence supported, crap is pretty pathetic.

BACK YOURSELF UP. Deal with General Relativity. Tell us why we should replace time with change, what we gain from it. Evasion of this shows you as a Crank and not a scientist.

"BACK YOURSELF UP. Deal with General Relativity. Tell us why we should replace time with change, what we gain from it. Evasion of this shows you as a Crank and not a scientist."

At the same time, general relativity is constantly being interpreted beyond what observation would indicate (and in the case of consciousness, in direct contradiction to what we experience).

We do not experience ourselves as a 4D "worm" that has components in multiple time dimensions. We have no knowledge of the future, and the past is a fading memory.

That's why I'm still befuddled at the notions of this article and the title. If we remove time as a dimension, it explains a lot. General relativity is still valid and Makoski spacetime is still a convenient, accurate method of doing the calculations. But to take that too literally, beyond what we consciously experience (observe) has literally no scientific justification.

Obviously we experience the passage of time. We experience being in terms

In quantum vacuum, time we measure with clocks is the numerical order of material change. In quantum vacuum the "past", the "present" and the "future" exist as a numerical order of change only. A numerical order has no duration of its own. A duration of a numerical order of change comes into existence through being measured with clocks by the observer. The observer's act of measuring creates time as duration of material change.

Maybe. But there is no reason to look at this way if the math is still based on T for Time. Unless you can convert all the math over to a change based system you are just engaged in philosophical mental masturbation.

Numerical order on its own has no duration

I seriously doubt this and you have presented NO evidence to support it. ...frozen chicken in time ... silly. Far more likely ... minimum time interval is the Planck Interval and that change is constrained by that interval. ...

These mindless posts of yours that only repeat the same philosophical based, no evidence supported, crap is pretty pathetic.BACK YOURSELF UP. Deal with General Relativity. Tell us why we should replace time with change, what we gain from it. Evasion of this shows you as a Crank and not a scientist.

Damn!!! He's right! Amrit's right! I've just seen the light! No, seriously, look at this thread! Look at Amrit's POSTS! His posts provide the very proof he's desperately been trying to convey. Look at the THREAD! Nearly 500 posts (Lords of Kobol!) and all this TIME, Amrit has been posting without numerical order of MATERIAL CHANGE!

I understand what they mean by there is no time or all the time is the same. A second is actually referred to as a clock tick from one point to another. So you are actually measuring the angular motion of the second hand with respect to any other object that moves. But I am a bit confused when it comes to periodic motion. Say something moves periodically, the word 'periodically' needs sense of time here. Take an electromagnetic wave with constant frequency, so time here is really interpreted as constant displacement+propagation for every oscillation with respect to constant displacement+propagation of another object (clock second hand) for every revolution(tick). So all-in-all time is completely relative and apparent, not physically measurable but a sensibly measurable quantity.

Ya, the clock ticking IS a physical instrument, but as per the article, what you measure is _exactly_ _not_ time but the change in movements of the hands with respect to something else that gives the perception of time.

This makes me think even mass is not measured directly/correctly. In a balance we measure weight which is mass times gravity. What if the gravity is not same as on the both sides of the pans? As it is proved gravity is not same in every point on earth(from my 6th std physics book).

I think for certain class of physics time need not be considered as a dimension or consciousness of dimensions are not reqd, so this will never affect those. It will be gr8 If they can only give a easily understandable way for their article and a 6th std student can understand and solve his textbook problem.

I had this question from when I was a kid, Why unit of time is measured in an absurd way (100ms=1s, 60s=1m, 60m=1h, 24h=1d, 365.25d=1y)? Is there a base 10 system for time?

what you measure is _exactly_ _not_ time but the change in movements of the hands with respect to something else that gives the perception of time.

The 'respect to something else' is just a circumlocution to avoid using the word TIME. And since the hands can move MORE or LESS in the same amount of TIME its a VERY bad concept. This is why someone brought up the frozen chicken. Change is measured relative to time because it WORKS and the opposite will just produce a big mess.

In a balance we measure weight which is mass times gravity.

No. We measure MASS in a balance. A spring scale measures weight. Increase gravity and a spring scale changes, a balance doesn't.

What if the gravity is not same as on the both sides of the pans?

Then its a lousy measurement which will change if you move the device.>>

As it is proved gravity is not same in every point on earth(from my 6th std physics book).

That is over a large area. Unless you happen to have some exotic matter handy. Or a REALLY big balance.

I think for certain class of physics time need not be considered as a dimension

I think there was an example or two on the thread. Also some attempts to HIDE time while hoping that no one would notice the trick. For instance a balance is dependent on time as it take time to put the weights on and time for the movement to damp out.

Why unit of time is measured in an absurd way (100ms=1s, 60s=1m, 60m=1h, 24h=1d, 365.25d=1y)?

Because the Babylonians used multiple bases and Earth based time units. Base twelve, ten, and 360 and maybe I missed a couple. The key base was twelve. Then later shorter intervals were added in using base 10.>>

We still use dozen and gross today. Dozen has some advantages. It is divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 vs. 1, 2, and 5 which makes it easier to split up a dozen evenly then with ten.

However to get back to the article. You have only touched on part of the idea. The other was that time is a numerically ordered measure of change and not a physical measurement. Which is silly. It can be considered as a numerical series but it is time that constrains the amount of change and not the other way around and Amrit is unwilling to deal with that reality. That is why any attempt to replace TIME with CHANGE is doomed to look as stupid as digging a hole in water.

I had this question from when I was a kid, Why unit of time is measured in an absurd way (100ms=1s, 60s=1m, 60m=1h, 24h=1d, 365.25d=1y)? Is there a base 10 system for time?

60s=m, 60m=1h, 24h=1day for the same fundamental reason that eggs are traditionally sold by the dozen and the imperial measurement system was based largely on 12 and 16. We have a bias for a base 10 system because we have 10 fingers and toes, but math would have been a little easier if we'd had 6 on each hand.

Ya, the clock ticking IS a physical instrument, but as per the article, what you measure is _exactly_ _not_ time but the change in movements of the hands with respect to something else that gives the perception of time.

Look, the fact is that for the time being (no pun intended) no one, including Amrit, knows what time OR space is on a fundamental level. Are they quantized or infinitely divisible? Open question. Are they fundamental or emergent? Open question. The dimensions of space and time can both be considered as degrees of freedom of position (and in the case of space, orientation). Time is more restrictive. Only movement in one "direction" is allowed. Why? Open question. What if one of the "space" dimensions had a similar directional restriction? Perhaps we would then "experience" 2Ds of space and 2Ds of time. Open question. Maybe in that sense time is no more than a broken space dimension. One thing I know though, is that as the stand out, time seems to BUG a lot of...

The 'respect to something else' is just a circumlocution to avoid using the word TIME.

I tried to put myself as a 6th grade student and thought of this stuff. But It seems you need atleast one clock that runs _independently_ to backup all that we learnt. But if you think everything is relative, you kind of land up in a noman's land and somebody has to re-explain all the stuff.

Change is measured relative to time because it WORKS and the opposite will just produce a big mess.

I guess current system of time helps us to understand stuff easily(relative). Someone has to re-explain for this system.

No. We measure MASS in a balance.

I thought a balance, balances the forces on the pans and the pointer moves due to the resultant torque.

Then its a lousy measurement which will change if you move the device.

gravity cannot change suddenly from one point to another. It must vary gradually :S. So technically you are measuring forces due to different gravities.

...people, especially philos and physicists, a lot more than space does, even though they both present the same fundamental ontological problem. Amrit seems to be REALLY uncomfortable with the nature of time (or rather not knowing its fundamentals) to the point where he is trying to do a lot of hand waving to make it just go away. His case is so bad that it's come to the point where we're, well, just having some good natured fun with the fellow. Fact is, even the current champion of the Time-does-not-exist camp (I know, technically this is not supposed to be Amrits position, but close enough), Julian Barbour can't make Time really disappear; he just recasts it as a one way space dimension. But then, if it's really just a special one way space dimension, well, isn't that just...Time? Anyway, I do find it interesting to think about, but in the end, as Eth writes, if their efforts are just a matter of recasting time as an equivalent with different semantics, that doesn't help physics.

Hard times ;) Now time seems to be kind of a mapping to me. :P The easiest way to understand what the article is about is to

1. Think you are learning physics2. Strike the line in your physics book that says Time is a physical qty' and replace it with 'Time is a sensibly measurable qty'3. Think of problems where you map time with some state, and where time seems to drive the motion. Now replace that thought with motion being independent and time being attributes given to different states. 4. Now solve them. There is no difference(mathematically) in both the methods, only logically you assume time is some name given to a certain state.

Its kind of works like a primary_key<->foreign_key in a database. I find it easy to understand by relating it to database, as I am a developer working on the backend.

@Gawad @Ethelred, I really don't care about the WHO, I really care about the WHAT and WHY, and I really hate standards. It doesn't really allow people to hack and understand to a better level.

"1s = the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom." -from wikipedia

While defining time they must stop using words like duration and period. They meant PERIOD to be CYCLES/OSCILLATIONS here.I don't know why they arrived to a particular number. What are the two hyperfine levels?

ssriram: Your 4 steps are strong. What you aren't taking into account is that space-time is relative. Time is relative. The measurement of time depends on your reference frame. Your summary would be fine if time were absolute and the same in all frames. The answer is a modification to relativity, if this idea of time is correct.

Gawad: regarding base 10 and base 12. Our number system is base 10. This kind of killed base 12. Maybe it was our fingers and toes that did it, but pi, e, sqrt(2) don't get any easier in a duodecimal system. And adding the 11th and 12th digits makes adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing quite a bit harder.

@Pyle, You are right, Sorry I forgot to mention that 'Think yourself as a 6th grade student' I really don't want common people to dive into relativity. I want them to have an idea about how TIME has changed now. ;) :P

OPEN QUESTION: Theory of relativity revolves around this concept of velocity of light(in vacuum) being constant. But we know that velocity of light changes when the medium changes. So does all the relativistic principles apply only to isolated events occurring in space? or This can be applied to events occurring in earth?

Gawad: regarding base 10 and base 12. Our number system is base 10. This kind of killed base 12. Maybe it was our fingers and toes that did it, but pi, e, sqrt(2) don't get any easier in a duodecimal system. And adding the 11th and 12th digits makes adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing quite a bit harder.

True, Pi, e, & roots aren't any easier, but you do get more even divisors. It's really handy to be able to split quantities cleanly into halves, thirds and quarters, and to be able to divide those again into halves and thirds. Can't do that with 10. That's all I meant by being a little easier.

Also, while your objection is quite correct as far as doing base 12 math using only 10 base symbols, if you add 2 extra unique symbols to base ten to make it base 12 (0, $, &, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, $0, $1...) then drill multiplication tables into your head like you did with base ten, then adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing are no harder or easier, IMO.

"1s = the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom." -from wikipedia

While defining time they must stop using words like duration and period. They meant PERIOD to be CYCLES/OSCILLATIONS here.I don't know why they arrived to a particular number. What are the two hyperfine levels?

Not in 1000 characters. Forget it. Look up fine structure and hyperfine structure on the Wiki (it's fine). Basically, when a caesium-133 atom goes from one hyperfine state to the other it emmits a photon. Count 9,192,631,770 oscillations of that photon and that's one second. One reason to use such a method is that it's based on a physical constant. It's not an invented standard like XML. And there are reasons for the latter too. If you don't like programming standards, move back to the 80's! If you don't like physical constants, than move to a universe with fundamental random variables! Of course you might not have an easier time hacking reality in one of those. Still you may have over 10^498 of them to choose from.

@gawad so while defining unit of "time" they say its the duration. OK. why that number and what are the the two hyperfine levels?

No, they're saying it's 9,192,631,770 oscillations of a photon emitted when a caesium-133 atom goes from one hyperfine state to the other, at rest at 0degK, duration of. And they defined it that way because, AFAIK, it's the closest match to the previous most exact values they had.

"lernt" is german."learnt" is your misspelling - (understood by all)"learned" the correct version.Any misspellings or omissions are all cosmetic.And NOT why I am pointing this out.

How many languages are running parallel inside you?I'm multilingual.And that is the way I view how we 'operate'. Question: What parallel languages are running inside you?This has no bearing on discourse. I ask out of curiosity.

We can think without using language. You seem to be of the opinion that we can only think within the words we know. But that isn't true. There would never be any new words if that was the case.

Thinking outside the box includes thinking outside the language. Which can be done mathematically or visually or by using physical tools, which is essentially visually but sometimes tactile. Or even sleeping on it.

Words may be how you make a living but they really shouldn't be a hard limit to your thinking.